ieee BH baal Z* e “ + o etl aes 
eb em Cee Bs Gos Pw 4 : = te he 
aes Shs Bas Os 


(Pm Bae Be ne Os Res Pe Pt Foe 
hae Pat ¥ BaP. ee Be Be 


SLO 9 ES 

‘ Seg voy 
- Ph 

; ? cw 8 BE mea 

ee - , ¢ : 

™ * shear 


mage 
ae 


* 


rns ne 
meter 


Ae 
aah + 


. aS : : vores 2 aie re 
mae eee, is : . ss ee Son 
AF Mee tae POY pre 3 “ é 4 , 
Cees a See 
Fone . 


Siar ee ee 
Ce ee 
Pe FO 
| reat le 


i er 


See 


4 


¥ 


i4 


i¢ 


4 : “ie 
: E eb eee 
z= ‘ = me ss : ; ine , or Yak ander eisirs 
3 Ch at he eee 7 B : : . ¥ * een S, 3 : 
Fn Pe Pe / - 


S pens 


4 
an 
“3 
© 
- 


a 


ki4ce 
i2 


“Res 
cota 
rem 


mo Pm 
Pe 
"an nena Pa nen 
eS es 


(#8 


Se te ee ae 


4 
ajaze 
bdr are 


# 


— ioe  meO 
Rte yn 
oS 


ie ai 
Tyra’ 


4 
* 


om Pe = = ee ee 
SP Fe Pie Bee Ph Bee i ee Bc Pek ele Bee 
Fee ~ ies i er 


a? 


<P thr eRe les 


Fp. 
PRR SV. 
> 


cae wv pneeace 
ne a 


Th B! 
‘, 


iy. ve 


+? 


ag 
aiat 


% 


os ae * r 4 < Cy 
or Fe . ~ ar - aie VF F Dae 
T3t~ : 


? 


tease 


1339 


et ae eee 


> 


i we eS pe 

ag tage aa tees 
oe ae er 
onda 


inaiy #\> 


Mh = Te 
I 
ae Ae deel 


S454 








Division 


Section 


wy 
Ae 


—— ——— 


Pins sae 


= 
ee 
a .. 

r 


) as 
a 


{ 
ree 
eA 
ib 
> -, 


ee 
x 








SAINT PAUL 
The Man and the Apostle 


BY THE SAME AUTHOR 


The Biblical History of the Hebrews to the Christian era. 
History of the Christian Church to A. pD. 461. 

History of Christianity 590-1314. 

Christian Difficulties in the IInd and XXth Centuries. 
Sketches in the life of the Early Church. 

Anglican Church Principles, 


EDITOR OF 
Outlines of Christianity, Vol. II, a. p. 100-1527. 


CO-EDITOR WITH KIRSOPP LAKE 
Beginnings of Christianity, Vols. I-III. 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
In 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


httos://archive.org/details/lifeofsaintoaulmOOfoak_1 






























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































The Earliest Representation of Saints Peter and Paul from the 
Catacomb of Domitilla in Rome 


ee seat ter ae tee aie ae Nae ok Sake S 


The Life of 
OAL PAULL 


The Man and the Apostle 


BY 


F, J. FOAKES-JACKSON 


& 


BONI & SLIVERIGHT 
NEW YORK MCMXXVI 


PSC Saad Caer AC tee ae ae ae Saee Se ake mee ae 





E: 
oe 
25 
4 
a 
SD 
co 
Ny 
i) 
ng 
2 
oy 
2 
3g 
ce 
o 
oes 
ad 
2 
ag 
of 
“sd 


| Bastiat Ss 


Tae cata a aE 


Copyright, 1926, by 
BONI AND LIVERIGHT, INC. 





All Rights Reserved 


Printed in the United States of America 





4 ie! ; 
TI's é 
Mind oe Ves et 
hive fi 
‘or -7 ‘ je 
. 4 ay) / ; ' 
1 rt ! 
\ i" sit é ; 
« if ? 1 
f ant i Thi bite th A ahd 
d SS tee | 
“ oF 
) ; a 
ry NMA ue fic 
. 
~~ 
| ae 
1h ME 
thay } f 
13 ~ 
Ul 
i 
es 


OMG a ht 
MY WIFE aarti 


‘ee 
Rr 
ey pe 


\ 
\ 
> 


fe 
LN 


el Vat A 
‘v1 Me ie M ¥ 
iP Noe Athy te 
Leu ish te ead . 
a “y ia 


Onis st 
NAb KS Bee 
ae 


Ven plain 
" BiGtie | 
Py CAE We « Gene au 


ee 
ih 
ay Het) sie 
an; Waviie 
AD RA Sas Sie 

Wh \ } 
af Py aie i 


int 
ny 


ae i 
an vs 


ne pear 
AGL. 





PREFACE 


Tue object of this sketch is to present Paul in the light of 
the known facts and circumstances of his age, in order to esti- 
mate the extent of his labours and the significance of his 
teaching. With this end in view, I have taken his Epistles and 
the Acts of the Apostles as they stand, as the only historical 
evidences available, and have endeavoured to interpret the 
mind of the age in which Paul lived and worked. JI am 
naturally aware of the grave historical and critical difficulties 
which these documents present, having already dealt with 
them in the “Beginnings of Christianity” which I edited in 
codperation with Dr. Lake. This work was designed to 
present the problem to scholars and to show how much re- 
mains to be done to ascertain and determine the truth: and I 
think we have fully recognized the labours of the great inves- 
tigators of the continent of Europe, Great Britain and Amer- 
ica, to elucidate the difficult problem. In the present volume, 
however, I am endeavouring to give the unprofessional pub- 
lic my own views, in the hope of interesting them in what 
Paul and his companions believed and effected. For this 
reason I have deliberately refused to discuss many things of 
interest today, notably Paul’s relation to the mystery religions 
of the world of his age. 

I have also frankly admitted the uselessness of attempting 
to conjecture what happened during the long periods in the 
life of Paul of which nothing is related. When his conversion 
occurred we do not know, probably between a.p. 32 and 37. 
Of the years between that event and his first missionary jour- — 
ney with Barnabas we are told very littl. We have no 
information as to what happened during his imprisonment 
for two years at Cesarea, or during his two years’ sojourn at 


eat 


PREFACE 


Rome. We know nothing of the missionary work in Syria and 
Cilicia of which he speaks in the Epistle to the Galatians. 


\ He may before the conclusion of his life in Acts have been a 


Christian for thirty years, and we have little detailed informa- 


‘tion as to his activities for about a fourth of that period. As 


to his later years we have nothing to guide us but tradition, 
which, however, maintains that Paul was put to death by 
Roman law, and gives no hint that the Jews, his persistent 
enemies in Acts, were accessories; a fact, I venture to suggest, 
not yet fully appreciated. 

This account of the career of St. Paul does not pretend to 
be more than an attempt to give the reader my personal view 
of one of the most remarkable men in the history of mankind. 
The natural tendency has been to judge the Apostle by his 
effect on successive generations, whether by the inspiration they 
received from his teaching, by the use they made of his writings, 
or even by the errors into which they have fallen by misappre- 
hending his real meaning. For Paul is so great a man that to 
this day he provokes the keenest discussion as to his true posi- 
tion. To some he appears to stand to Jesus as the prophet does 
to God; to others, on the contrary, Jesus gave mankind a simple 
and beautiful message, which Paul perversely misinterpreted. 
Some recognize in Paul the true exponent of Protestantism, 
others of sacramental Catholicism. He is claimed as the libera- 
tor of mankind from legalism, and as the enslaver of the 
human mind to dogma. To Marcion in the second century 
he was the true Gnostic who freed mankind from the harsh 
conception of the God in the Old Testament; to Augustine, 
in the fifth, the champion who fought for the supremacy of 
Divine Grace against the will of man; to Luther he liberated 
Christians from reliance on works of merit, and taught them 
to trust in Christ alone; to Calvin, he made men realize the 
absolute supremacy and foreknowledge of God. The older 
evangelicals laid, perhaps, excessive stress on his scheme of sal- 
vation, in the present day the tendency is to neglect Paul or to 
set him in opposition to a purely imaginary liberalized and 
unhistorical Jesus. 

8 


PREBRACE 


Undoubtedly the best British contributions to the under- 
standing of St. Paul have been on the practical side in ex- 
plaining the geography of the world in which he lived, and 
the roads and seas on which he travelled. James Smith of 
Jordanhill, Conybeare and Howson, Lewin and above all, Sir 
William Ramsay have done yeoman service in this direction; 
but I have omitted this aspect of the Apostle’s career, because 
I have tried to describe what he did, rather than what he 
saw; and besides my studies have not been in this direction. I 
have consulted but few in the composition of this work. 
When it was practically finished, my friend and colleague, 
Professor James Everett Frame read it with great care, sub- 
jected it to searching criticism, and discussed it with me for 
long hours with a brotherly kindness and sympathy which I 
can never forget. 

I cannot hope for all to approve or agree with my views of 
the Apostle Paul, but if I can stimulate interest in him among 
any of my readers, I shall be more than satisfied. 


i€ rary 


4 Oa 
’ Hh 

he | 

oe 


be 
hah 
by ny 


Aaa 
rh 
_ 1 

A VIVLE RTs 


oy i 
we 


ees 
oe 
(fear, 
Dy ey is 


i 


oe 
= r 
Ser In 

cesta 

i _ —= 
=) ~ 


caw ey 





CONTENTS 


SEPRODUCTIONII Csi hed ulewaletiy eats Like URe he ahetelel est Gets ve 
CHAPTER 
I. THE JeEwisH WorLDIN THE Daysor Paut .. . 
ieee EA CSENTILEWVVORED Sani iam trl ol Mesh etn eit alt ie 
LED GHRISTIANTL Yio DEEOR BULA hee pony Ulery em ent « 
VCR ECAR Va" DAYS GORGE AUL Und ara g ribet nea eon e uth ey 
Meme ETON V ERSIONRORLO Lie At Tine nil or UNI ehcp came « 
VI. BARNABAS AND SAUL 
VII. Paut AND BarnaBas APPROACH THE GENTILES . . 
VIII. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONVERSION OF THE GENTILES 
IX. Format ADMISSION OF THE GENTILES . 
X. Paut, SILVANUS AND TIMOTHEUS 
XI. Tuer Gospet Enters Europe 
XII. THe Mission To AcuatA (GREECE) 
XIII. Epuesus BATE UiKied Wee aD Pe Te Ok er Ie 
XIV. Pauv’s Activiry at EpHesus—I Corinthians 
XV. Seconp Visit To Europe—II Corinthians 
XVI. PAUL AND THE ROMAN CHRISTIANS 
XVII. Paut Gors To JERUSALEM . 
XVIII. Paut BEForE RoMAN AND JEWISH TRIBUNALS 
XIX. Paut In RoMe We 6 kk 
XX. Lxrcrenpary History oF St. PAuL . 
XXI. Tue Doctrine oF ST. PAUL a ae 
XXII. Tue Earrty INFLUENCE oF PAaut’s TEACHING 
XXIII. INFLUENCE oF PAuL IN LATER HisTory 
XXIV. A GENERAL EstTIMaTE OF Paut’s WorkK 


APPENDIX. ATTITUDE OF ST. PAUL TowarD FEMALE CONVERTS 


INDEX 


PAGH 


13 


25 
oy 
49 
62 
72, 
83 
94 
107 
118 
128 
138 
149 


159 
169 


180 
190 
200 
210 
22% 
231 
241 
251 
262 
272 
283 
289 


: slag alah “Z. 4 f J at f ah 4 Aoki 
(Ay nt a i, Ane 


madi py 
SAR 94 
a yb t 4 
LT rt 7 x 


cyl) 
ae 


ey | | 
A Lary ROLL TAS Nba Ae} 
AMG ise svileat a ee atk 
iN . Kaa hs LEA ee } , ‘ ' 


y i 
eA : : 


i r.2 
’ 


tak i } 

Be ME a ih Lal iade 

ty REL CL MaL ae an 
VOR, 


Pi. Lie 


nf pi | 
Be aha 
Rey alee 

OP Pe re let BP iroyy ) 
i) ey tha od i if 
3 i A 


is ; 


ay 
‘ 


Lit 
yi 


, Nee ee 
yor ia 


ie |» 
mi a 
an: 


« 


hive 
rArake 
{ i 


AY 
et 
von 
Lie 


v) 


ge IE dy Ty 
PHELAN ee yu 
ig 
} fttey 


; ray 
ATEN AS a 
vais, 


a i 





INTRODUCTION 


THERE are certain men, few indeed in number, whom no 
historian and no student of human nature can possibly ignore. 
One of these is Paul the Apostle. But this scarcely justifies 
another attempt to write his life. It is doubtful whether 
any person has ever been the subject of more searching ex- 
amination and fuller discussion. Were a writer to commence 
his work with a bibliography which approached completeness, 
he would spend a long life in compiling it, with the result 
that his labours would be represented, not by a book, but by 
a large encyclopedia. How then can any one presume to add 
another sketch of Paul’s life, his opinions, and his influence on 
human thought? It is vain to hope that fresh material can 
be contributed to add to our available knowledge of the sub- 
ject, or that anything can be suggested which has the merit of 
originality. Every word Paul wrote, every act of his life has 
been subjected to most searching criticism, and every con- 
ceivable theory has been advanced concerning him, and the 
only excuse a writer can offer is that he cherishes a hope that 
his book may reach a wider public than is interested in tech- 
nical or learned works on theological subjects. 

His object is therefore to endeavour to make his readers 
aware of the intense human interest in the career and char- 
acter of one of the most remarkable personalities in history, 
to show that St. Paul was not simply a saint, interesting 
only to pietists, not a thinker, who appeals only to theologians, 
nor a writer of formal “epistles,” suitable to be read in church 
or as an exercise of devotion, but otherwise a trifle dull and 
mostly unintelligible. On the contrary one’s endeavour must 
be to show that he was an exceptionally gifted man, full of 
enthusiasms and great ideas; that his life abounded in wonder- 


13 


UNE D ROD Cereb OuN 


ful experiences; and that so far from being a formal writer 
of theological treatises under the dignified name of epistles 
he was the author of letters, full of humanity, friendship 
and affection for his correspondents. 

But above all Paul was a religious guide of extraordinary 
power, a man who had exceptional experiences, and the 
eift of using them for the benefit of the world. ‘This is one 
of the most attractive features in his letters. He can take a 
problem which troubles his correspondents, deal with it with 
a marked display of sound common sense, and suddenly raise 
the whole question to a higher level, and give mankind for 
all time a passage like his description of charity in I 
Corinthians xiii. 

It is this amazing versatility which makes him so difficult 
to be understood by good but dull people, who form the 
majority of commentators. Their object is to make his writ- 
ing into a Summa of theology. The devout discover in Paul 
a scheme of salvation, clear cut and systematically formu- 
lated. Thus he becomes an oracle to those who rejoice in the 
dogmatic definition of creeds, to those who see the essence 
of Christianity in church order, to those who desire a weapon 
against the ecclesiasticism of their time. And for this reason 
Paul is made an excuse for the strangest perversions of Chris- 
tianity. On the other hand unfriendly critics are never tired 
of pointing out that the Apostle is inconsistent, that he says 
one thing in one passage and takes it back in another, that he 
is not worthy of serious consideration because his views appear 
to change according to the occasion on which he enunciates 
them. 

This charge of lack of consistency is a delight to men 
of limited intelligence, who desire some one whom they can 
understand, and will always say exactly what they expect 
of him. As they cannot find such a man in Paul, his utterances 
often appear to them to be illogical. But this is not because 
he is really inconsistent, for no one held to great principles 
more consistently, but because of his exceptional breadth of 
view, and his power of seeing that there is more than one side 


14 


ENP RO DU CL EOQN 


to every question. After all the Epistles taken together would 
make but a tiny book, many were written in days of much 
sorrow and anxiety, the language often reveals how deeply 
the writer’s feelings were stirred. Paul writes, not as a literary 
artist who carefully polished every period, but as a man who 
found words at times inadequate to express the great thoughts 
which occupied his mind. 

This makes Paul so intensely interesting. To understand 
him as a writer we must go below the surface to discover 
the man. And with the materials at our disposal it would 
be no easy task to estimate the character even of an ordinary 
individual, which Paul emphatically was not. He was a 
genius, with all the curious contradictions which make such a 
character. He cannot be standardized and dismissed. It is 
only by sympathetic study that we are able even to arrive 
at an idea of him as he actually was. Both those who admire 
and those who would disparage St. Paul are in agreement on 
this one point, that he changed the course of Christianity by 
compelling the Church for ages to come to accept his views, 
which were not those of the original believers, or, if they 
were, only found lasting expression in him. He found the 
Church a small Jewish community with crude Messianic con- 
ceptions; he left it a world organization in which there was 
neither Jew nor Gentile. He sublimated the simple faith and 
hope in Jesus as the Messiah of Judaism into a worship of 
Him as the Son of God, in whom dwelt the fullness of God- 
head. He made faith in this doctrine of Jesus the keynote 
of Christianity, the only means of man’s attaining liberty and 
salvation. He emphasized the sublime view of the redemp- 
tive power of Christ’s death upon the cross. He sowed the 
seed from whence sprang the doctrine of the Catholic Church. 

Whether he made or marred the religion of Jesus is de- 
bated. That St. Paul has powerfully influenced Christianity 
is certain; but it is very difficult to say exactly how far he 
differed in his view of the work, character, and resurrection 
of Jesus from those of his predecessors. It is also a moot 
point whether the work and teaching of Paul changed the 


15 


TNR OVD UC GON 


Christian Church during his lifetime, or whether his influence 
began to be felt after his death. 

In approaching the first problem it must be borne in mind 
that, though from the first there were many missionaries of 
the Gospel in all parts of the world, no authentic record has 
survived of any of their labours except the early ones of Peter, 
and those of Paul. Christianity must have reached Rome 
early in the missionary career of St. Paul. That the Church 
‘of Antioch had begun to send out men to preach the Gospel 
before his recorded labours had begun, that churches were 
established in Asia Minor and Syria by other apostles, and - 
that Paul was continually being denounced by rival propa- 
gators of the Faith, are assured facts; but as regards the ques- 
tion of St. Paul’s subsequent influence, it is not possible to form 
an estimate of his labours without extending our inquiry far 
beyond his earthly career; but even the immensity of the sub- 
ject ought not to deter an author of even a brief description 
of him from some discussion of the far-reaching effects of his 
teaching. 

Here, however, any one who attempts to invite his readers 
to consider the career of the great Apostle, should plainly 
declare his own individual opinion as to the relation of Paul 
to Jesus. It has been maintained and widely held that Paul, 
not Jesus, was the real founder of Christianity. From this 
view I entirely dissent. Of the life of St. Paul we know more 
from contemporary authorities than we do of that of Jesus. 
It is not by any means certain how long the ministry of 
Jesus lasted, possibly only a few months: Paul’s known labours 
extended over many years. The sayings of Jesus are recorded 
years after His ministry in the form we now have them; whilst 
we have at least some letters of Paul, which hardly any critic 
has ventured to deny are genuine documents. Yet it cannot 
be denied that the sayings of Jesus, as we now have them, pre- 
served in the Gospels, at whatever date they appeared, bear 
the stamp of originality. Apart from all theological or dog- 
matic considerations they must be the utterance of a man 
of unique character. Their beauty, their simplicity, their 


16 


PNR ODO der OoN 


directness, the profound insight they display, are something 
apart by themselves; and, however such a discourse as the 
Sermon on the Mount was reduced to its present form, there 
is nothing written by St. Paul comparable to it. Nor is this 
all; the theologians have turned to Paul, but the highest 
Christian acts of self-denial and heroism have been performed 
under the inspiration of Christ. To this day the opponents 
of the Christian Churches have no better weapon than the 
charge that modern Christianity does not act in harmony with 
the teaching of its Founder. All would agree that His 
example, whether we live up to it or not, is the standard of our 
religion, and no Christian from his time to our own would 
be more ready to endorse this than Paul himself. Without 
Paul, Christianity might have been different: without Jesus 
Christ, impossible. 

The study of the world in which Paul lived is necessary to 
understand him. Without some acquaintance with the thought 
of the age much of his writing is unintelligible. It is of the 
utmost importance to remember that Paul was a Jew, and to 
have an idea of the character of first century Judaism and 
its habits of thought. He was able to accomplish his work 
because he was a Roman citizen, the meaning of which must 
be made clear. That any one could travel so widely on a 
missionary enterprise, implies a world under good govern- 
ment; and it is advisable to study the administration of the 
provinces of the Roman Empire. Paul had to defend him- 
self against the accusations of the Jews, whose object was 
to make him out an offender against the Roman law, which 
also must be understood to make much of the story of Paul 
in the Acts of the Apostles intelligible. His converts also 
in the churches-to-which he wrote were very different: Romans 
at Philippi, a mixed population at Thessalonica, educated 
Greeks at Athens, commercial Greeks at Corinth, each one 
of whom needs separate consideration. 

This variety makes the life of Paul of special interest, and 
when one remembers that the thought of the time has also 
to be considered, the vastness of the subject is almost over- 


17 


INTRODUCTION 


whelming. Yet despite the great range of knowledge need- 
ful, it has to be realized that the amount of direct evidence 
is indeed small. 

It is very little use to read about Paul unless constant refer- 
ence 1s made to the sources for his life. These are open to 
all, as they are to be found in a small part of the New Testa- 
ment, which always should be at hand during the reading 
of any book about St. Paul. Continuous reading of the Bible 
as a Christian duty has gone out of fashion, and it is highly 
desirable that an intelligent study of Scripture should take 
its place. 

Every one, therefore, who wants to learn about St. Paul 
should take his Bible as his source book, and try to make out 
his own story from it. It may appear wearisome, and at first 
almost purposeless, but as an advance is made it will prove 
increasingly interesting, and no one who finishes the task will 
regret undertaking it. All the epistles which bear the name 
of Paul, except that to the Hebrews, were received at a very 
early date as genuine letters by him. In comparatively mod- 
ern times questions have been raised as to some of them; but 
so far as I know, only one responsible critic has thrown any 
doubt on four epistles—Romans, I and II Corinthians and 
Galatians. Speaking generally, though the genuineness of I 
and II Thessalonians, Philippians, Ephesians and Colossians, 
has been questioned, these may be accepted as coming from the 
Apostle. More serious doubts have been raised about the 
so-called Pastoral Epistles to Timothy and Titus, and no one 
acquainted with their style can unhesitatingly pronounce them 
to be Pauline, though the matter is not by any means finally 
decided. These letters date from the very last years of 
Paul’s life, and therefore are not important as affecting the 
years of his active ministry. The brief note to Philemon, for it 
can hardly be called a letter, is important as illustrating the 
character of Paul and his relation to slavery. It is, at least to 
me, inconceivable that any one should have fabricated it: 
short as it is, it is an invaluable document. 

From these letters it is necessary to gather all personal de- 

18 


PNP O Dig: CP LOin 


tails which are introduced. The most important of these are 
to be found in Galatians, Philippians, and II Corinthians. 
Then the student should look for any notices that reveal the 
personal traits of the Apostle, his prayerfulness, his sympathy, 
his capacity of friendship, his practical good sense, his natu- 
ral politeness and the like, some important, some trifling, but 
all significant as revealing what manner of man he really was. 
Next comes the more arduous task of finding out what Paul 
believed and taught on such great doctrines of Christianity 
as the nature of God, the relation of Christ to the Father and 
the resurrection. Some trouble undoubtedly is demanded, but 
the amount of matter to be read is very small. Excluding the 
“Pastoral Epistles” the entire correspondence of St. Paul 
covers about I10 pages of Westcott and Hort’s Greek Testa- 
ment, averaging roughly thirty-five lines to a page or less 
than forty thousand words, which makes a very small modern 
book. Any one, who even attempts to do as I suggest by 
reading what St. Paul has to say, will learn more than if 
he read a whole library about him. 

Of less value, but of immense importance, is the Acts of 
the Apostles. Of its twenty-eight chapters, the parts devoted 
to St. Paul are vii. 58 —vili. 3, his share in the death of 
Stephen and, as a persecutor; ix. I-31, his conversion and 
what followed; and xiii.-xxvili. his missionary journeys, the 
accusations brought against him by the Jews, his defence 
before the Roman authorities, his shipwreck and his arrival 
at Rome where he stayed for two years. The belief generally 
accepted by the early Church and by no means rejected by 
competent scholars to this day is that the author of Acts was 
Luke, a companion of the Apostle in his later days. But, who- 
ever may be the author of Acts, the book contains some mate- 
rial of first rate authority for a life of Paul. Here and there 
are to be found passages written in the first person plural and 
it is generally agreed that the writer of them was actually 
with the Apostle at the time. The “We sections” as they are 
commonly called (Acts xvi. 11-18, XX. 7—xXxI, 26, Xxvil. I— 

1g 


DN GER OnD U CerGn 


XXVill. 16) reveal that the author was with St. Paul when he vis- 
ited Philippi, that he rejoined him in the same neighbourhood 
some three years later, accompanied him to Jerusalem, wit- 
nessed his arrest there, was probably his companion whilst he 
was imprisoned at Casarea, and certainly was with him on his 
voyage to Rome. These “We sections” take rank with the 
Epistles as contemporary evidence. 

Only second to this are the chapters which give us the 
itinerary of St. Paul on his three missionary journeys, the 
only reason why they are not of such importance as the 
“We sections” being that they are not all written by an eye- 
witness. Nevertheless they are of absorbing interest, not only 
on account of the valuable information they display, and the 
vigour with which some scenes are described, notably the tumult 
in the theatre at Ephesus, but because of the light thrown 
on the condition of the Roman world of the age. 

There remain the Conversion of St. Paul (Acts ix), and 
the speeches put into his mouth. The account of what hap- 
pened at this crisis of his life differs in some of the details 
from what St. Paul wrote in the Epistle to the Galatians, a dis- 
crepancy which will need fuller consideration hereafter. 

The speeches put into the mouth of St. Paul are naturally 
less important than his own writings. In the first place the 
narrator can hardly have heard many himself, and, in the 
second, it was so usual for an ancient historian to assign set 
speeches to his characters that it is not impossible that the 
writer of Acts did the same. If so, the interest in the speeches 
lies in their illustrating an early estimate of the Apostle’s mode 
of teaching. Some of them do, however, seem to be echoes of 
what 1s read in the Epistles. 

Considering his astonishing personality and the extent of 
his labours, Paul occupies but a small place in Christian tradi- 
tion. Even the story of his preaching and beheadal at Rome 
is embellished by few details. In Clement’s letter, so called, 
written from the Church of Rome to that of Corinth, he is 
said to have gone to the “boundary of the West”: a later 
story sent him to evangelize Britain. There are also apoc- 

20 


INTRODUCTION 


ryphal Acts of Paul, the most ancient and interesting being the 
tale of Paul and Thecla. 

The situation of the churches dedicated to the two founders 
of the Church at Rome is in itself a parable. Both are outside 
the city walls, that of St. Peter’s on the Vatican hill where 
the gardens of Nero were. It became, though never the 
cathedral church of the Pope, which is St. John Lateran, the 
centre of Roman piety. The church of St. Peter was the 
scene of the imperial coronations, and for five centuries the 
palace of the Vatican has been the chief residence of the 
Popes. St. Paul’s on the Ostian Way stands on a site where 
hardly any man dwells. It is as though the Apostle of the 
Gentiles was represented as a solitary figure, imperfectly 
understood, and therefore somewhat remote. A New Testa- 
ment writer says his epistles contain much that is hard to com- 
Peenend (11) Peter 1i..15)), and it?may, be’ that, after all the 
labour bestowed on him and his writings mankind has not yet 
learned fully to appreciate St. Paul. 


Zl 


aS Reantht 
iho katy 
¥; 1 


WY yao Se 
Lei ie d 


Ne 





SAINT PAUL 


t 
. 


Av es { ‘. ie 





+ i e 
ean a 
a ; 
ny : 
sy itis 


a Nee 


| 
\¥ t u 


>. oe 
on 


( Arie Per 


fh 


‘ : Ne 1a d th 4 ta . sb : € , 
SHOAL ihe We eetise | aa ae 
Ways 8 ee a : ie ae 
ak td r ‘ 
ep! f, LON \ crie EAL 
hen aie “EG 


Ww) a De 





SAWING AR We veAUE ID 


Ars lyalel ea E ay ARe aE 
THE JEWISH WORLD 


Paur was a Jew, who has won fame as the Apostle of the 
Gentiles. He belonged therefore to two worlds; as a Jew he 
was a member of the chosen people, and as a Roman citizen, 
one of the nation which ruled the civilized world. In his 
day the Jews and the Gentiles lived side by side, refusing to 
intermingle, the one looking to Jerusalem as the future reli- 
gious capital of mankind, the other to Rome, the head and 
fount of empire. Before speaking of the Apostle himself it 
is desirable to form some idea of the Jewish and Gentile 
world in which he was to play his part. 

There are few more misleading names than the word “Jew.” 
The history of the chosen people before the exile is not the 
History of the Jews though this is the title of many books 
on the subject. It is absurd to say that Moses led the Jews 
out of Egypt, or gave the Law from Mount Sinai to the 
Jews. For Jew means properly a member of the tribe of 
Judah. Even the inhabitants of Jerusalem did not live en- 
tirely in the Jews’ country for half the city was in the tribe 
of Benjamin. Neither Barnabas nor Paul was strictly speak- 
ing a Jew; and where Paul describes himself accurately he 
says he was “circumcised on the eighth day, of the race of 
Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew-speaking man of 
Hebrew-speaking parents, in my attitude to the Law, a Phari- 
see, proving my zeal by persecuting the Church” (Phil. iii. 5-6). 


25 


DHL N Lane ae 


In the Psalms the people are Israelites, and even when Juda- 
ism is mentioned it is as a parallel to Israel. “God is known in 
Judah: His name is great in Israel (Ps. xxvi. 1). In the 
prayer book of the Synagogue the people are not Judah, but 
Israel. Regarded as a nation Jew was the generic name; 
but the religion was that of Israel. Till the Captivity Ju- 
dah always meant a single tribe; and, except under David 
and Solomon, by no means the most important in the Israelite 
confederacy. At the return the majority belonged to Judah, 
and were generally known as Jews (Judahites, Judzi, Jews), 
and their peculiar religion was popularly called Judaism, 
though never correctly so. However, as Judaism after the 
Captivity is not identical with the ancient faith of Israel, 
the term may conveniently be adopted. 

/ The ancient religion as it appears in the Old Testament was 
in its highest or prophetic aspect the worship of the God of 
Israel Who stood preéminently for righteousness. When 
the nation served Him faithfully it prospered, when it was 
in distress its apostasy was being justly punished. It was, 
like most early religions, national or tribal rather than per- 
sonal in the sense that the guilt, and not simply the punish- 
ment, was incurred not only by the individual but by the 
community. Hence the prophets as a rule address Israel as 
a people. In its lower aspect the religion of Israel was the 
performance of rites and ceremonies in accordance with cus- 
tom or tradition; and it was expected that by these God would 
be appeased, and continue to protect His own People. The 
priests were the custodians of the worship, because as a caste 
they knew the right way of performing it. Against this 
mechanical conception of duty to God the Israelite prophets 
raised a constant protest. 

After the fall of Jerusalem during the Captivity in Baby- 
lon a twofold change took place. The prophet Ezekiel laid 
stress on personal religion. A man was not hated by God 
because his father was bad, or loved because he was good. It 
depended on himself. God would befriend him if he turned 
from his father’s evil way, and would not help him if he 

26 


THE JEWISH WORLD 


proved an unrighteous son of a righteous father (Ezek. xviii. 
I-32). This seems obvious to us but it was a great advance 
on the popular religion of antiquity. The second develop- 
ment towards Judaism as contrasted with the old religion was 
that its laws were promulgated in writing, instead of being 
entrusted to the memory of a priestly order. 

Thus Judaism became a literary religion. Its Law was 
studied with avidity, and as much of it was primitive and 
sanctioned the customs of remote antiquity, it needed con- 
stant interpretation. The scribe became more important than 
the sacrificing priest and a tradition as to how the Law should 
be observed arose and was perpetuated by what were later 
known as “The Men of the Great Synagogue.” * 

The returned exiles, like the modern Zionists, were not the 
prosperous Jews who lived in the Babylonian, and later in the 
Persian empire, but devoted men who had sacrificed their 
worldly prospects to settle in and about Jerusalem. After 
Ezra and Nehemiah disappear, hardly anything is known 
about the community till the beginning of the second century 
B.C., if we except the story of Alexander the Great’s visit 
to Jerusalem. During this obscure period Jerusalem was 
virtually under the rule of the High Priest and the Temple 
worship was conducted with great beauty and reverence. . 
Music played an important part, the Psalter was in process 
of growth, as we see from the books of Chronicles, which 
belong to this period; and we have two descriptions of the 
sumptuousness of the Temple services; one in the book of 
Ecclesiasticus (1. 1-21), which gives a picture of it in the days 
of Simon the High Priest; the other in the probably spurious 
letter to Aristeas, a courtier of Ptolemy Philadelphus, King 
of Egypt (287-240), which is nevertheless a valuable docu- 
ment for its description of ancient Jerusalem. 

As, however, the priesthood became a wealthy aristocracy 
its religious fervour sensibly cooled. The High Priesthood was 
sought by every means, violence, intrigue or bribery. The 


1These were a succession of teachers from the time of Ezra onwards. See 
C. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers. 


27 


SAACLIN abe Ava: 


story of the family of Tobias in the Avtiguities of Josephus 
(bk. xii) gives a dreadful picture of the corruption of the age. 
We see 2 young and ambitious Jew buying the right to collect 
the revenue of Syria from the kings of Egypt, exacting it in 
relentless severity, amassing a vast fortune and establish- 
ing himself in a strong castle from which he makes predatory 
expeditions. We find candidates for the High Priesthood 
perfectly ready to abandon the Law for the worship of the 
Greeks. Heathen games are performed in Jerusalem and the 
young priests eagerly take part in them and the total aban- 
donment of the God of Israel appears to be inevitable (II 
Mace. iv. 7-14). 

What saved Judaism was persecution; Antiochus Epi- 
phanes, King of Syria, a madman of genius resolved to make 
all his subjects Hellenists, and forced all the Jews as indi- 
viduals to apostatize. In this crisis it became evident that the 
strength of Judaism was not in a privileged priesthood but 
in the people. Martyrdom was endured with astonishing 
courage, the women were foremost in their zeal of the Law 
(I Macc. i. 41-64; II Mace. vi-vii). At last an aged man of 
the lower class of priests raised the standard of revolt. 
Mattathias of Modin and his heroic sons gathered a small com- 
pany and defeated the Syrian Greeks and the apostate Jews; 
and, by skilfully utilizing the factions of the rival pre- 
tenders of the Kingdom of Syria, became, first a force which 
had to be conciliated, and gradually the heads of an inde- 
pendent nation. The Maccabees or Hasmoneans, as they are 
called indifferently, became priestly rulers and later priest- 
kings of Judza. Their success is a proof of the intense love 
for the Law among a people who, despite the corruption of 
their official leaders, must have been carefully instructed in its 
principles for generations. 

Judaism entered upon a new phase. Persecution had made 
the people other-worldly. Their sufferings taught them no 
longer to look for earthly prosperity as the reward of piety. 
On the contrary they perceived that piety meant suffering 

28 


Hotietee ee Wel Sh W.O RED 


in this world, and their hopes turned to reward in a world 
to come. Those who had died for the Law would rise again, 
a deliverer would appear as the prophets had foretold. God 
would anoint him as a Messiah to save his People; the Gen- 
tiles would be destroyed and here, on earth or elsewhere, Israel 
would triumph. In other words the new Judaism was char- 
acterized by its intense hatred of the Gentiles, a belief in a 
resurrection from the dead, and a hope of future glory under 
a king raised up and anointed by God.’ 

Religious parties naturally arose. In the Maccabean 
struggle a sect called the Assidzans appear, of whom nothing 
is known, except that they deserted Judas the Maccabee when 
the Syrian government gave the Jews a High Priest named 
Alcimus. This meant that so long as their religion was men- 
aced they would fight for it, but they desired no worldly 
dominion for Israel or its leaders. The Law was all they 
cared for; and, if they were allowed to practige it in peace, 
they were indifferent as to the form of government under 
which they lived. In other words they dissociated religion 
from all worldly ambitions.° 

When the priestly kingdom was on the way to being estab- 
lished by John Hyrcanus, the nephew of Judas and the son 
of his brother and successor Simon, the Pharisees made their 
appearance. One of them, named Eleazar, bluntly told 
Hyrcanus that he ought not to be at once High Priest and 
the secular ruler, and alleged falsely that as his mother had 
once been a slave, Hyrcanus was not legally High Priest. As 
the Pharisees refused to impose an adequate punishment for 
this insult, Hyrcanus turned to the rival sect of the Sad- 
ducees (Joseph Anzig. XIII x. 5-6). 

Thus the Pharisees became committed to a policy similar to 
that of the old Assidezans. They stood for religion as the 

2 Beginnings of Christianity, vol. ii, pp. 128ff. Yet St. Paul hardly even alludes 
to the apocalyptic parts of the Old Testament. Only once, in II Thess. ii. 4, does 
he quote Daniel. 

8 Beginnings of Christianity, vol. i, p. 87-89. See I Macc. ii. 42, II Macc. 


xiv. 6. It is impossible to speak with certainty about these “Assidzans.” They 
are interesting as the first representatives of non-political Judaism. 


29 


DAL See A 


first, and political nationalism as a secondary consideration. 
The fulfilment of the Law became their chief concern. Not 
that the Sadducees were not attached to the Law; they were 
strict legalists adhering to the letter of the Law and refusing 
to allow it to be expanded or relaxed by tradition. The 
Pharisees, on the other hand, strove with all their might to 
make the Law possible to observe. Where it was too burden- 
some or impossible to fulfil, they laboured to make it intelli- 
gible and workable. Tradition gave them the power of bind- 
ing and loosing, that is of insisting on some commandments, 
and relaxing others. At the same time they were fanatically 
religious, refusing all accommodations to political expediency. 
As judges they had the credit of being merciful; but in their 
insistence on the fulfilment of the Law, and on isolation from 
the Gentiles, they were uncompromising. They are also said 
to have enriched Judaism by their doctrine of a belief in a 
future life, and in the existence of angels and spiritual beings, 
in opposition to the Sadducees who denied both resurrection 
and angels as not being a part of the Law of Moses as Israel 
had received it.* 

In the end all the different Jewish sects, the ascetic Essenes 
and ‘Therapeutz, as well as the Sadducees, disappeared, and it 
is not too much to say that the Pharisees are the parents of the 
orthodox Judaism of today. Paul was a Pharisee and in Acts 
he is represented as declaring that he was a son of the 
Pharisees (Acts xxiii. 6). Unless this is borne in mind his 
character, and his interpretation of Christianity cannot be 
appreciated. 

The Pharisee then was the Jew to whom religion was 
the supreme consideration. Like all extremely religious 
people he had his failings as well as his merits. According to 
a Rabbinical utterance there were seven different species of 
Pharisees; and only two of these are commended. Because 
of certain words of Jesus, Christians have been disposed to 
include the Pharisees in one sweeping condemnation as “hypo- 


* Beginnings, vol. i. p. 111-114 and p. 436. See also Travers Herford, The 
Pharisees. 
30 


THE JEWISH WORLD 


crites” that is actors playing a part for show. We must now 
examine the justice of this conclusion.° 

It is not borne out by the action of our Lord towards 
them, taken as a whole. He certainly denounced them with 
unsparing severity, but so did the Rabbis denounce the pre- 
tenders to Pharisaic holiness. Still the Pharisees entertained 
Him at times in their houses; and after He was risen many 
became believers. St. Luke relates Gamaliel’s intervention to 
save the earliest disciples; and even if the story is not historical, 
and in Gamaliel’s speech (Acts v. 34ff.) there is a startling 
anachronism, the very fact that it was current proves that 
at a comparatively late date there was a certain good will 
between the Pharisees and the Jewish Christian Church. St. 
Paul on one occasion was supported by the sect when he de- 
clared before a hostile Sanhedrin that he was a Pharisee (Acts 
xxiii. 6). The Pharisees were, for all the faults, undoubtedly 
of some of the best representatives of Judaism: men who strove 
heart and soul to live up to what they believed to be the 
principles of their religion.® 

As has been indicated the Law, far from being regarded 
as an intolerable burden, was the pride and the glory of the 
Jewish people. They actually loved it for all the severe 
demands made upon them. It is true that it never was nor is 
easy to be a strict observer of the Jewish Law. It meant 
isolation from the world, constant religious observances, and 
no common self-denial. But when habits have been instilled 
into a people for generations, when they are recognized as the 
chief means for maintaining their nationality, when their cus- 
toms have been perpetuated by the heroic deeds of their 


5 Beginnings, vol. ii, p. 112, note 2. The very fact that in Rabbinic literature 
the hypocritical Pharisee is blamed is a proof of how high the true one stood in 
popular estimation. 

6 The Pharisees distrusted the attitude of Jesus towards the Law, but, except 
the Hellenist Saul before his conversion, none of the sect persecuted the Church. 
One thesis in this work is that St. Paul never completely broke with Pharisaism, 
but was only anti-legalistic for his Gentile converts. I cannot agree with Mr. 
Herford that “Paul presented a mere travesty of Judaism,” though his followers 
have undoubtedly done this. 


ay 


SAUDNi iP cAsU ep 


ancestors, above all when they are believed to be due to the 
will of the God Who had so wonderfully preserved Israel 
in the past as His own People, it was natural that the Law 
should be regarded with enthusiastic affection, and that even 
those who were lax in observing it should reverence those 
who performed all its precepts. These found a special pride 
and joy in fulfilling them. We cannot understand Paul with- 
out taking into account his early enthusiasm and that of his 
countrymen for the Law." 

Besides the Jewish world in Palestine to which Paul in 
part belonged, there was another of which he also was a 
member, that of the Judaism of the Greek-speaking Disper- 
sion. In every part of the Roman Empire and far beyond 
its frontiers, from the river Indus to the shores of the Atlantic, 
Jews were to be found. In the great capitals of Rome, Alex- 
andria and Antioch, especially at Alexandria, they formed a 
large part of the population. They are called in the Acts 
of the Apostles Hellenists because they spoke Greek in con- 
trast to the oriental Jews who like those of Palestine used 
Aramaic, a dialect akin to the ancient Hebrew, but more 
copious and widespread being the lingua franca of the Near 
East. Here we are concerned with Hellenistic Judaism. The 
chief literary products which have survived are the Greek 
translations of the Old Testament, the so-called Apocrypha 
bound up with our Bible, notably The Wisdom of Solomon, 
Ecclesiasticus (a translation from the Hebrew) and the books 
of the Maccabees, the writings of Philo of Alexandria and of 
Josephus. That these have survived is due to the Christian 
Church; for when Judaism became entirely Hebraic in its 
language, and all its instruction was given in Hebrew or 
Aramaic, its Greek literature was allowed to fall into, oblivion. 
Some the Christians preserved as part of their Scripture, some 
they regarded as valuable evidence for their religion; and they 
studied Josephus and Philo when the Jews had completely 
forgotten them. The influence of these writings on Chris- 


7 One has only to read the Hundred and Nineteenth Psalm to see how the Jews 
loved their Law. 


32 


AEE eeWeL SEW © Ri TD 


tianity is too important to be overlooked here, though a pass- 
ing notice must suffice.* 
’ The Jews translated their Scriptures into Greek at least as 
early as the third century before Christ. This they rightly re- 
garded as a momentous step, and attributed it to the suggestion 
of Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt and founder of the 
library at Alexandria. The translation was embellished by 
legend, and the Christians added a miraculous story that all 
the translators were inspired to produce identically the same 
rendering. On the whole it, and not the Hebrew, was the 
Bible of the New Testament and of the Christian Church for 
centuries. Other versions were made by Jews in opposition 
to the ancient one which the Church had adopted, but even 
these cwe what is known of them to Christian copyists; and yet 
the Greek Bible is the gift of Hellenistic Judaism. With all 
his exclusiveness the Jew has always possessed great powers of 
assimilation. In one stage of its development Judaism was 
powerfully influenced by Persia; and where Jews learned 
Greek they adapted their methods of thought to its philosophy. 
The Alexandrian Jews, unlike the Palestinian who persisted 
in using a Semitic language, rapidly assimilated Greek ideas. 
As a salve to conscience they persuaded themselves that the 
wisdom of Greece had all been derived from Egypt, where 
Moses, their lawgiver, had left behind some of his sublime 
truths. Encouraged by this belief they boldly tackled Plato 
and interpreted the Law by the aid of his philosophy. Even 
the God of Israel the King, Father, Shepherd, Husband of 
the nation, and the Leader of its hosts, became Hellenized 
as the Unknown and Ineffable Deity, who acted through some 
Intermediary, His Wisdom or His Word. But for all this 
the Greek Jews held firmly to the observance of the Law 
by which His Will was known. Philo, an earlier contem- 


8 The eagerness with which the Jews studied the wisdom of ancient Greece and 
claimed that it was derived from Moses, contrasted with their complete aban- 
donment of all their literature in Greek, can be accounted for, I think, less by 
their antagonism to Christianity, than by their renunciation of the culture 
of the Roman world after a. p. 135. 


33 


DL LEN ae eA aT 


porary of Paul, has no use for lax and half-apostate Jews 
any more than the author of the Book of Wisdom. It is 
generally maintained that the Hellenized Jews were more 
liberal in their opinions than those who lived in Jerusalem, 
but there are no signs of this in the Acts. Paul, who certainly 
used their phraseology, had no more bitter opponents in his 
later days.° 

‘There were other followers of Judaism outside the nation. 
In the days of Paul the Jews were eager missionaries, anxious 
to induce the Gentiles to accept their religion. There is a say- 
ing attributed to Christ that the Pharisees “compassed sea and 
land to make one proselyte” (Matt. xxiii. 15). Judaism had 
its attractions. On its lower side it was regarded as powerful 
magic. A Jew was not like other men, he might be disliked, 
but there was something mysterious about him and his religion 
which made people feel that he was supernaturally helped. 
Hence the Jewish magician was in request, and Jews were 
asked to sell dreams and foretell the future. . 

But in its nobler aspect the religion of the Jews had its 
attraction. Their lives were purer than those of the surround- 
ing peoples, and they were almost the only nation which 
had not degenerated in the enervating atmosphere of the 
pax Romana. ‘The women especially were drawn to Judaism. 
Hence arose the numerous class of “proselytes.” 

It used commonly to be assumed that there were two kinds 
of proselytes, those who sympathized with Judaism (and the 
synagogues were largely frequented by Gentiles) and those 
who threw in their lot absolutely with Israel. These were 
called respectively “Proselytes of the Gate” and “Proselytes 
of Righteousness.” But this distinction did not exist. Judaism 
did not recognize half-Jews. A proselyte must accept circum- 
cision and become an Israelite, or remain a Gentile. He must 
be all or none. 

Our Lord added that when the Pharisees made a proselyte 


®As Saul and the Hellenistic synagogues stirred up the persecution about 
Stephen (Acts vi. 9ff.), so the Jews of Asia accused Paul of having profaned 
the Temple (Acts xxi. 27). 


34 








LHE JEWISH WORLD 


he was more “a child of hell”? than themselves, meaning, I 
suppose, more persecuting and intolerant. This is but natural: 
a man born and bred in a religion is more apt to take it as a 
matter of course. He recognizes outsiders as people less 
fortunate than himself. It may be he knows his religion is 
not perfect though he loyally adheres to it. Not so the con- 
vert, who must show his zeal for his new faith by hating his 
old beliefs, and his loyalty by denouncing those who hold 
them. Hence he is specially inclined to encourage persecution. 
St. Paul was opposed by the Jews as a rival missionary, and 
by the proselytes as a hateful apostate. 

* Very little is known of the rise of the worship of the Syna- 
gogue, but by St. Paul’s day it was universal. It was not sacri- 
ficial, or priestly or ritual. It was more like Christian worship 
than anything else. The reading of Scripture, the recitation of 
the Psalms, the prayers, the exposition of the Law in sermons 
were its characteristics as were discussions on points of religion. 
The synagogue was largely utilized by St. Paul to propagate his 
doctrines as it was there that he invariably began his preaching 
when he visited a city for the first time. . 

The social standing of the Jews in the early days of the 
Roman Empire is important. Despite much unpopularity espe- 
cially when congregated in large numbers in an otherwise 
Greek city, like Alexandria, their leaders were influential and 
not ill received in the higher circles in Rome. The Jewish 
actor Aliturus, Josephus relates, was an important person in 
assisting the historian in his embassy from Jerusalem (Life ch. 
3). The Herodian family were powerful in the imperial 
house, and the mother of Herod Agrippa I was an intimate 
friend of some of its great ladies. Tiberius Alexander in 
Egypt was a high Roman official. Herod Agrippa was brought 
up with the Emperor Caligula. Paul had his friends in Czsar’s 
household. 

All the time Paul was preaching events were preparing 
for the terrible outbreak of Jewish patriotism which ended 
in the Jewish War and the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, 


35 


S AYN Si PoA iE, 


and it must not be forgotten that the power of the Jews was 
due to the fact that they were not only widely dispersed and 
well-organized, able as negotiators and turbulent as mobs, but 
that they were the one people within the bounds of the Empire 
capable of seriously threatening its existence. 


36 





GEA Pay Rey Dt 
THE GENTILE WORLD 


Sr. Pau was a Jew and also a Roman. As the one he 
was able to obtain a hearing among the People of God, as the 
other protection as a traveller in all parts of the civilized world. 

The Roman Empire was one of the greatest political 
achievements of the human race, and the fact that it ever came 
to an end is one of the most difficult things to account for in 
history. It is now the fashion to disparage it, chiefly because 
it does not conform to our modern ideas of what a world- 
government should be; but with all our progress and enlight- 
enment we have never been able to produce anything in Eu- 
rope which maintained the peace, and, on the whole, the hap- 
piness of mankind for so long a period. To judge it from the 
standpoint of some modern writers, it never did anything 
but decline and fall. But considering that the world dominion 
of Rome began after the conclusion of the second Punic war 
in B. Cc. 202, continued to increase till the conquest of Britain 
in A. p. 52, that no part of it was lost till the fifth century 
A. D., that Constantinople or New Rome only ceased to be the 
seat of empire when it was taken by the Turks in 1453, and 
that the last ruler to claim to represent Cesar and Augustus 
surrendered the title of Roman Emperor in 1806, the marvel 
is not so much the fall as endurance of the Roman Empire. 

It is also frequently assumed that when the Empire, as 
we call it, was founded under a single ruler all liberty ceased. 
But as regards everybody, except the Roman aristocrats and 
plutocrats, all that makes liberty worth having really began 
with the Empire. It was now possible to travel by good roads 
on land, and on a sea freed from pirates, to trade, to study, 


a 


STAIN ely PeAa sls 


to correspond. Peoples were allowed to retain their ancestral 
religion, cities enjoyed large privileges of self-government, 
the inhabitants were free from compulsory military service. 
What citizenship meant can be illustrated by an event in a. p. 
1847 and another in a. p. 58. 

A Maltese Jew named Don Pacifico was attacked by the 
mob of Athens, his store wrecked, and he and his family in- 
sulted. He was not an attractive person, nor particularly 
honest, and he claimed outrageous damages. But he was a 
British subject, and the minister, Lord Palmerston, insisted 
that justice should be done to him by the Greek government. 
Both the French and the Russians protested, and the incident 
nearly led toa war. But Palmerston declared that no British 
subject, whoever he might be, could be insulted with impunity, 
and had a right to demand the support of the Empire to which 
he belonged.* 

A Jew was accused of profaning the Temple at Jerusalem. 
The priests and populace of the most turbulent city in the 
Roman Empire clamoured for his death. To refuse to give 
him up might provoke a rebellion. But he was a Roman 
citizen. Four hundred soldiers and seventy mounted men 
were requisitioned to take him in safety away from the city 
(Acts xxiii, 23). Two years later he could boldly say to 
the provincial governor, “I stand at the tribunal of Cesar 
where I ought to be judged . . . if what these people accuse 
me of is nothing, no man can give me up to them. I appeal 
to Cesar,” and the only answer to this was, “Thou hast 
appealed to Cesar: to Caesar shalt thou go” (Acts xxv. 10-12). 
Such were Paul’s rights as a citizen of Rome. The whole of 
the vast power of the Empire protected him from being 
wronged. 

Paul was, of course, a privileged person, but the way in 
which he probably acquired his citizenship shows how compre- 
hensive Rome had already become. No longer was Rome a 
city, nor the capital of Italy; she was the whole civilized world. 


1In defence of his action in the House of Commons, Palmerston made an 
effective use of the words Ciuis Romanus sum (“I am a Roman citizen”). 


38 


er eee eNO We Riot Pp 


Her citizens were living in all countries, irrespective of their 
nationality; according to the Acts of the Apostles, Paul and 
Silas, both Jews, were citizens, and Paul says he was a Roman 
by birth. Claudius Lysias in command of the troops at 
Jerusalem bought his citizenship (Acts xxii. 25-29). At 
Philippi the inhabitants, like those of all colonies, were Ro- 
mans (Acts xvi. 21). A manumitted slave could be a citizen. 
St. Paul, therefore, was 2 Roman; because his father or 
grandfather had purchased the privilege, or were the client 
of a great family, or had rendered service to the govern- 
ment. He belonged to the ruling class. He was free from 
the oppressions and insults to which provincials were exposed. 
He might not be put in bonds, or beaten or condemned to a 
shameful and lingering death. Paul tells us that he suffered 
most of the hardships of a mere provincial in his travels as an 
apostle; but as a Roman he had the right of appeal to the 
People, which in his day meant to the Emperor, who was 
invested with the power which had belonged to the tribunes 
of the plebeians. Zealous for the Law as a Jew, he also had 
a respect for Rome which threw over him her protecting 
eeis. 

The Roman imperial system has been loudly condemned 
from the moment it was inaugurated to the present day. The 
Republic is supposed to have stood for liberty, the Empire 
for slavery, and nearly all the literature of the time was elo- 
quent in praise of the one and condemnation of the other. 
Even in modern times the Roman Republic has been regarded 
as the embodiment of civil liberty and honest simplicity of 
life, and the Empire of grinding despotism and incredible 
luxury and vice; and, whenever an assassin has made up his 
mind to kill a king or president, he has flattered himself that 
he was imitating the austere virtue and love of liberty of 
Brutus, the murderer of Julius Cesar. Whatever the political 
merits of the ancient Republic were, and no one can deny 
that the system which practically abolished the distinction 
between the ancient patricians and plebeians and extended 
the citizenship in a modified form throughout Italy, without 


LU, 


SAUNT PAWL 


civil bloodshed, preserving Rome for centuries from internal 
tumult, must have possessed many virtues. Still, the boasted 
liberty of the later Republic extended only to a few powerful 
political and military leaders. The imperial system of 
Augustus, on the other hand, by preserving the outward form 
of the republican constitution whilst placing all real au- 
thority in the hands of one man, was hailed by a world dis- 
tracted by war with a sigh of relief. At Rome, after 
Augustus, no doubt, dreadful. things happened, but the 
provinces had gained greatly by the change. Under the 
Republic their administration was oppressive in the extreme. 
A proconsul was sent to govern one for a single year. It 
was impossible for him to become really acquainted with the 
people before his term of office was concluded. As a rule, 
therefore, he made hay while the sun shone, and returned 
to Rome with a fortune extorted from the wretched people. 
Augustus and his successor Tiberius seriously endeavoured to 
reform this abuse. Tiberius left the same man in the province 
or district for years. Josephus says that when he was asked 
why he did this the Emperor spoke a parable. A man bleed- 
ing and grievously wounded was covered with flies, which 
a benevolent stranger tried to drive away. The sufferer 
begged him to desist because the flies on him were satiated, 
and if new ones came they would be hungry and only increase 
his torment. Tiberius meant that a newly appointed governor 
usually had a keener appetite for plunder than a man who 
had been in office for some time. But even under the worst 
emperors the Roman tradition, which, with all its harshness, 
had respect for law and order, was maintained and the greater 
part of the world enjoyed the advantage of a firm and estab- 
lished government.” 

Not only so, but a certain amount of freedom was al- 
lowed and even encouraged. No one can read the Acts of 
the Apostles without seeing that almost every city had its 


? Beginnings, vol. i, p. 192ff. The inhabitants of some senatorial provinces 
petitioned to be transferred to the Emperor in order to enjoy a more equitable 
government, 


40 


Her Eerste NVI DEE Wi OER TD 


own government and officials. Thessalonica had its “rulers 
of the city” (politarchs), Ephesus its “town clerk” (gram- 
mateus) or scribe, Jerusalem its Sanhedrin under the High 
Priest, and for a short time a king of Judza (Agrippa I). 
One has only to consult a map of the Near East to see that 
native rulers abounded. In Asia Minor there was a Kingdom 
of Polemo, and a Kingdom of Commagene, in Northern 
Syria a little Kingdom of Chalcis ruled by one of the Herods. 
There were also petty rulers called ethnarchs, or tetrarchs, 
and priestly rulers of territories belonging to Temples as the 
High Priest in Judza had once been. The policy of leaving 
native potentates to administer their kingdoms under Roman 
protection had been adopted by Pompey the Great, and was 
not wholly dissimilar to the arrangement of British India 
with its native states.” In fact, the Romans allowed the people 
to govern themselves provided they remained at peace and 
caused no disturbance. We do not hear of any of Paul’s la- 
bours outside the provinces directly subject to Roman author- 
ity. 

It was customary to represent the Roman world of St. 
Paul’s age as utterly corrupt. This was due to the fact that 
the sole source of information was the picture drawn by the 
moralists, including St. Paul, the historians, and the satirists 
of the time. But if modern Jife in fashionable circles is to 
be judged only by unfavourable reports would it fare much 
better? To judge of a society by the scandals about its rulers, 
and the degrading amusements provided for the corrupt pop- 
ulace of the large cities is manifestly unfair; and now we 
know more of the life of the people, especially of the middle 
classes from inscriptions and the Egyptian papyri‘* we have to 
revise this judgment. Still common sense would prevent the 
belief that the average member of society lived an entirely 


8 Beginnings, vol. i, p. 182. Professor Duckworth, the writer of this chapter 
draws an interesting parallel between these “native states” in the Roman Empire 
and those in British India. 

*From these papyrus fragments we gain a clear idea of middle-class life in 
Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. 


AI 


S ALUN Tee RAO 


abnormal life. We read in the contemporary literature about 
the excesses, often bestial, the follies and the luxury of men 
and women intoxicated by their power and wealth, but the 
inscriptions and papyri show that the ordinary folk had their 
little clubs and fraternities, exhibited much domestic affection, 
carried on the business of life, kept their accounts and wrote 
more or less illiterate letters to their friends and relations. At 
the same time fear of exaggeration must not conceal the fact 
that society in every heathen city was more corrupt than where 
people are even professedly Christian, and that ancient life 
had some very repulsive aspects which are happily absent from 
our own. 

Religion in the Roman Empire bore at least some resem- 
blance to that of the present day. The government was tol- 
erant of private opinion of the subject, and of practices which 
were not inconvenient to good order. Provided people did 
not interfere with the religion of the state, they might wor- 
ship much as they pleased, and few were satisfied with what 
was officially practised. They preferred something which 
appealed to them as individuals. There was a perfect 
passion for cults, mostly oriental in origin, which inspired 
the imagination, or promised the knowledge of secrets 
unknown to ordinary mortals. The worship of Cybele, 
with its priesthood and. its baptism of blood came from 
Asia Minor; that of Isis with its impressive ritual, from 
Egypt; later that of Mithras appealed by its secrecy and its 
ascending scale of initiations. But the most popular attrac- 
tion was in the so-called “mystery religions.” Both men and 
women were initiated into the mysteries or secrets of some 
divinity. As a rule, the “mystery” turned on death and 
life, and the initiates were subjected to some test of their 
fortitude, before they were admitted. Often the story was 
represented in dramatic form. ‘Those who had passed the 
test and learned the secrets formed a fraternity, and probably 
met for a common meal. This some consider to have had 
a very important bearing on the work of St. Paul, as it is a 
much debated point whether he did not borrow from the 


42 


lel Kerb sls lal, eV R: ba D> 


mysteries for his doctrine of the Christian Sacraments. Was 
his interpretation of Baptism as being a death and burial fol- 
lowed by a resurrection with Christ to a new life, due to an 
unconscious adaptation of what he had been told about the 
heathen mysteries? The same may also be asked about the 
Lord’s Supper.’ 

One form of religion which appears very strange and re- 
pugnant to us, and yet, if explained is easily accounted for, 
was the worship of the ruling Cesar. It is difficult for us to 
understand how men could regard a mortal as a supernatural 
being, and pay him divine honours, yet it is common in almost 
all primitive stages of society. Still it does seem strange 
that in a highly civilized world men should gravely believe 
that the Emperor was divine. Yet something very similar 
is said to have happened in India when the native soldiers 
of General John Nicholson (d. 1857) began to worship him 
asa god. Horrified at such honours being paid him, the gen- 
eral ordered his worshippers to be flogged, but this evidence of 
his power and wrath only made them pay him more respect. 
It was somewhat the same with the Emperor Augustus. The 
more he showed his dislike to divine honour, the more the 
provincials desired to worship him. Was this altogether un- 
natural? Rome (the Greek word rémé means power) was 
not only a power to be dreaded, but an object of gratitude: to 
Rome the people owed the peace of the world, and Cxsar was 
to them the embodiment of Rome.°® 

The cultus was strictly not of the Emperor himself, but of 
the Genius (Greek ryché—fortune) of Rome, and neither 
Julius Cesar nor any living Emperor, except Tiberius, was 
worshipped in Italy, where deceased emperors by decree of the 


5 My private opinion is that the atmosphere of the mystery religions pervaded 
the Church in regard to the Sacraments at a later date than that of the labours 
of Paul. Dr. Inge’s judgment in his Outspoken Essays (First Series), that Paul 
was “willing to take the first step, and a long one, towards the paganizing of 
Christianity” seems to be entirely misleading. 

6 Beginnings, vol. i, p. 205. Professor Duckworth discusses the rise of the 
cultus of Rome and Ceasar and of the hierarchy of its priesthood. The provinces 
practically forced Augustus to accept their worship of him, 


4.3 


SVD Nee PAU 


Senate were enrolled among the gods with the title of divus, 
a practice which has an analogy with Christian canonization. 
In the provinces, however, in all parts of the Roman dominion 
“colleges” of priests were organized for the worship of Cesar. 
This had an important bearing on the spread of Christianity, 
as well as on the fortunes of Judaism. The Emperor Caius, 
better known as Caligula (a. p. 37-41), gave orders that his 
statue should be placed in the Temple of Jerusalem, to the 
horror of the Jews throughout the world; and their objec- 
tion was ignorantly interpreted by the government as a sign 
of disloyalty. Later, Christians suffered for refusing to swear 
by the genius of Cesar, their refusal being considered to be a 
proof of disaffection. Both Jews and Christians declared that 
they either sacrificed, or prayed for the welfare of Cxsar. On 
the other hand, the elaborated hierarchy organized for the pur- 
pose of the Imperial cultus, may have been unconsciously 
copied by the Christians in organizing the churches under their 
own leaders or bishops, especially as the episcopal system is 
supposed to have originated in Asia.”. The world in St. Paul’s 
day with its Gentile background resembled in some ways our 
own. (1) It was cosmopolitan; (2) it was full of great cities; 
(3) distinguished for its grandiose rather than great achieve- 
ments; (4) for the enormous wealth of individuals and the 
rise of new men to power and influence; (5) the people more 
and more looked to the state for maintenance; (6) side by side 
with much brutality there was a growing feeling in favour of 
more humanity; (7) scepticism was giving way to a desire for 
religion, though the old faiths were becoming discredited. 

(1) The Romans complained that their city was no longer 
inhabited by natives even of Italy, just as today New Yorkers 
say that theirs is no longer American. When St. Paul wrote 
to the “Romans,” even if he could have sent a Latin letter, his 
correspondents probably would not have been able to read it. 
Greek was widely spoken in the imperial household as well as 


7 Early episcopacy was parochial rather than diocesan. Long before the 
Peace of the Church (a.. 313), the ecclesiastical organization was based on 
the secular divisions of the Empire. 


44 


baer toN 7h Lite WiC) Ro ie TD) 


the crowded quarters of the city. In the streets one would 
see every type of oriental face, and men of every race—A fri- 
cans, Gauls, Spaniards, even British. The satirist Juvenal 
complained that Rome was in his day, a generation later than 
Paul’s, not Roman but Greek, and also that the native popu- 
lation had been swamped by Syrian immigrants. It was the 
same everywhere, nationalities were annihilated by the world 
being under a single government and by the consequent ease 
with which people were able to transplant themselves. This 
was one of the means by which a universal religion had be- 
come possible as it never had been before. 

(2) Another symptom of the change which had come over 
the Roman world, as it has over ours, is that people no longer 
desired to live in the country. The poets sang in praise of the 
life of the farmer, and the rich built country houses and in- 
dulged in gardens and amateur farming, but the population 
crowded into the towns. The population of Rome cannot 
be determined, but some have placed it at two millions. 
Antioch, Alexandria, Carthage and other cities may each have 
had a million or more crowded within their walls. The coun- 
tryside was well-nigh deserted, and the great cities had to 
import their food from overseas. Most of the labour was 
done by vast gangs of slaves; and the freemen were often un- 
employed and looked for food and entertainment being sup- 
plied by the rich, so that their idle classes were recruited alike 
from the wealthy and unemployed, and the industrious middle 
class was gradually disappearing. Among these people the 
Christian religion made headway and probably one of its at- 
tractions was the simple and laborious life which it encour- 
aged. When Paul worked with his own hands he did almost 
as much to advance the Gospel as by his sermons and letters. 
City life, however, with its many disadvantages, at least 
brought men together and contributed to the spread of Chris- 
tianity. In later times it was the countryman paganus who 
adhered to the earlier religions. 

(3) Another characteristic of the Roman world was the 
desire to do things on a large scale. Josephus tells us that 


45 


D AEN SE Bove Gay 


one of the great causes of Pontius Pilate’s unpopularity with 
the Jews was that he used the treasures of the Temple 
at Jerusalem to construct a great aqueduct to supply the 
city with water. Many today would sympathize with Pilate. 
Water was the supreme need necessary for the health of the 
people. The treasury of the Temple was full to overflowing 
and Pilate resolved to employ some of the surplus, not for 
his own advancement, but for the public benefit. The Jews 
regarded this as profane (Antig. XVIII. iii. 2). Roman com- 
monsense was opposed to religious zeal and a serious riot 
followed. But the incident is instructive. We see in it an 
example of the practical but unsympathetic good sense of the 
Roman, opposed to the idealism of the Jew. The char- 
acteristic of the Roman rule was that it was occupied entirely 
with this world and even its religion and its gods stood for 
civil virtue and the material objects of life. Paul and all 
associated with him, even his personal opponents, were 
against this conception of society. Yet the immense buildings 
and works of the Romans command our admiration. The 
wonderful system of sewerage which protected the health 
of Rome, the arches spanning the valleys to sustain the pipes 
which brought pure water from afar, the huge baths and 
amphitheatres, the ruins of which still survive in cities in every 
part of the ancient empire, the paved roads which were con- 
structed over hill and dale often for many miles in a straight 
line, the magnificent harbours, are all proofs that the govern- 
ment was one of the most practical this world has ever wit- 
nessed, Nevertheless, Rome lacked the lofty idealism which 
men like St. Paul afterwards laboured to create by propagating 
the religion of the Christ. Truly, the Apostle could say 
when he lived among these stupendous efforts to secure per- 
manence, “The fashion of this world passeth away.” 

(4) The days of St. Paul were marked by the concentra~ 
tion of great wealth in the hands of individuals. The 
Roman from the earliest days was avaricious: the first 
domestic troubles in Rome were due to the savage cruelty with 
which the patricians exacted payment of the debts of their 


46 


THE GENTILE WORLD 


plebeian fellow citizens. It was the same in the later days 
of the Republic except that the distinction was not between 
a privileged aristocracy and the people, but, as now, between 
rich and poor. In St. Paul’s day immense fortunes were 
made; but the most successful “millionaires” were often men 
of the humblest origin. The freedman was the butt of the 
satirists of society. Slaves were often highly educated and 
were employed to manage their masters’ affairs, often greatly 
to their own personal advantage. Thus we have the extraordi- 
nary anomaly of slavery reducing some to abject misery, and 
at the same time enabling others to become the financial 
masters of the world. But on the whole, covetousness was 
the besetting sin of the age, and was the subject of the solemn 
warning of the Master, “Take heed and beware of covetous- 
ness,” and of Paul who said, “Covetousness which is idolatry.” 

(5) Another interesting parallel between St. Paul’s time 
and the state of Europe, especially England at present, is that 
the people looked to the government to maintain them. 
Crowded into great cities they depended on free distribution 
of corn and food generally, and demanded entertainment 
at the public cost. To prevent disturbances it was necessary 
to keep large idle crowds fed and amused. What was con- 
demned by moralists as the profuse extravagance of the em- 
perors had often policy behind it. Taxation became increas- 
ingly heavy, population decreased because the industrious 
could not look forward to a secure maintenance of their chil- 
dren. Family life was disappearing owing to this and the 
increasing selfishness of the age, and good men looked to the 
future with apprehension. 

(6) Despite the unquestionable grossness and brutality of 
the Roman Empire in the first century of our era, there was 
a growing tendency to greater humanity. Moralists like 
Seneca, who exhibits many sentiments resembling those of 
Paul, showed a disposition to recognize the right of slaves to 
a treatment far less severe than that sanctioned by the law. 
Some of the best men openly showed their horror of the 
gladiatorial combats. The great lawyers began to recognize 


47 


SAIL NG Wer ANU 


that the entire human race—even slaves—had rights as men. 
In short, the old Roman sternness was gradually though al- 
most imperceptibly yielding to kindlier feelings toward man- 
kind, and the Christian idea was not entirely opposed to the 
best feelings of the time.* 

(7) Lastly, the age was a religious one. In the later days 
of the Republic the old religion was losing its hold and noth- 
ing was taking its place. Epicurean atheism was fashionable, 
the heathen priesthoods scoffed at the rites they were celebrat- 
ing. But when Augustus became supreme he encouraged a 
religious revival; and under his successors it became evident 
that the vast majority needed some religious help though 
men knew not where to look for it. Christianity came to 
supply them with a pressing want.” 

In such a world Jesus Christ appeared with a message from 
God, which He delivered in a tiny province of the world 
Empire. How St. Paul carried this message throughout all 
lands in the face of incredible difficulty, persecution, and dan- 
ger must be the theme of every attempt to write his life. 


8 The Stoic philosophers, and especially the lawyers, began to recognize that 
all men had rights. Seneca in his De Beneficiis (on Kindnesses) recognizes that 
slaves can be true friends to their masters. 

8 Even if Christianity did borrow from the “mystery religions” the existence 
of these proves that men found in the true religion that which they had sought 
in the false—purification from guilt and a closer union with the divine. 


48 


GEV APE Sah Ria lek 


Garis tA Nil Y* eR RRO RIRGUSIT . uD AUT Tas 
CONVERSION 


Lack of material makes it very difficult to say exactly what 
the Christianity of the first age was. Before we set out on 
our task to describe it, we have frankly to declare that we 
have no absolutely contemporary evidence for the acts and 
words of Jesus. This startling proposition is not a result 
of advanced criticism: it is valid even if the traditional view 
of the origin of the New Testament is correct, and the author 
of the First Gospel is St. Matthew the Apostle; of the Second 
St. Mark, the companion of St. Peter and St. Paul; of the 
Third St. Luke, the fellow traveller of St. Paul, and the 
Fourth St. John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee. For the 
earliest tradition informs us that St. Matthew wrote the 
“oracles” of Jesus in “Hebrew,” and therefore the Gospel, 
as we have it in Greek, must be later than his original col- 
lections of the sayings or “oracles” of Jesus. St. Mark is 
credited with having put into his little volume what he re- 
ceived from St. Peter. St. Luke says that he was not an eye- 
witness, whilst the tradition is that St. John wrote his Gospel 
in extreme old age. Contemporary evidence would have to be 
that of someone who recorded during the ministry of the 
Lord what he actually heard and saw Him say and do at the 
time. Mark and Luke are confessedly secondary witnesses; 
Matthew and John, if primary, must have written so late 
that many things had happened entirely to alter the view they 
had of Jesus when he was actually with them on earth. But no 
amount of cold criticism can alter the fact that the Four 


49 


SAT Ny TPA st 0 


Gospels, if not as useful to the apologist as formerly, are still 
of unequalled value to the devout student of Christianity.” 

The life of Christ is naturally of immense importance to 
every follower of His religion; but the question of the sources 
is most intricate, and even the simplest discussion would break 
too much into a plain narrative like the present. Here we 
may begin with the only record we have of the infant church 
of Jerusalem, to be found in the first chapters of the Acts 
of the Apostles. 

However the astonishing miracle of the resurrection of 
Jesus Christ from the dead may be explained, and whatever 
view may be held of what actually happened, there is no doubt 
that the disciples of Jesus accepted it as a fact. The Man 
Whom they had known on earth, with Whom they had con- 
versed familiarly, Whose body they had touched and handled, 
had been crucified, buried in a rock-hewn tomb, and had come 
to life again and they had seen and conversed with Him. 
He had also disappeared into heaven before their eyes. 

What we have to inquire into is not so much the physical 
facts, as the result a belief in them inspired. This may be 
summed up by saying that Jesus had been while on earth a 
Teacher and His followers disciples, and now He was in heaven 
He had become a Deliverer, and His former disciples were 
His Apostles. Henceforward, it was their duty to proclaim 
that deliverance had come to Israel and to the world at large 
in the person of Jesus Christ, Whose resurrection was a proof 
of His being the long-promised and expected Messiah. The 
Twelve who had been chosen companions of Jesus were 
charged with disseminating this good news (evangel or gos- 
pel). The followers of Jesus were all of them Jews, and 
inevitably regarded all that had happened in terms of Judaism. 

1The Gospel story of the words and acts of Jesus belong to an aspect of 
Christianity somewhat different from that disclosed in the Epistles of St. Paul. 
This is discussed in Beginnings, vol. i., 265ff. “The Public Teaching of Jesus and 
the Choosing of the Twelve.” The first three Gospels are later than Paul’s 


epistles. Paul’s system, mainly theological, and that of the Synoptists, historical, 
existed almost from the first side by side and have continued to do so ever since. 


50 


Dee Oho eee A Use ON V ER STON 


During the ministry Jesus was recognized as a rabbi or 
teacher and acknowledged as a prophet. At the very end, 
after Peter’s confession, His immediate disciples saw in Him 
the Messiah or Christ. After the Resurrection, Peter had no 
hesitation in proclaiming openly to the Jews at Jerusalem that 
He was the Messiah. But the speeches of Peter’s as reported 
in (Acts ii. 14-39 and ii. 12-26) go much further than the 
popular conception of what the Messiah was to accomplish. 
If modern criticism is correct, there are two accounts of 
the day of Pentecost, the earliest being, not Acts ii but Acts 
ii1 and iv in which Peter declares that by His death, resurrec- 
tion and glorification, Jesus is the Messiah, “Whom the heaven 
must receive until the times of the restitution of all things” 
(Acts iii. 21). In other words, He is not a mortal anointed 
by God to save Israel from its earthly enemies, but a Divine 
Being, exalted into heaven Who will return in God’s time to 
perfect His work on earth. In the other speech, recorded 
in Acts 11, one proof of His Messiahship is the Resurrection, 
the other the fact that the spirit of God has been poured out 
on man and that all who accept Jesus may receive it together 
with forgiveness of their sins by being baptized.’ 

The record of Christianity before Paul is indeed brief and 
what is told us in Acts can only be subjected to the test of his- 
torical probability which is naturally a matter of opinion. 
Nevertheless, that Jesus was from the first regarded as the 
Messiah, now in heaven, may safely be accepted. According to 
Acts the preaching of Peter and the Apostles to this effect was 
popular in Jerusalem. What opposition there was seems to 
have come from the much-disliked priestly aristocracy: the 
people and even some of the Pharisees (Acts xv. 5) seem to 
have been on the side of the new sect. This may be accounted 
for by the fact that the Pharisees had opposed Jesus for His 
supposed laxity in regard to the Law. This charge could not 
be brought against His disciples. Peter is said to have gloried 
in his scrupulous abstinence from all food that was common 


2For Dr. A. von Harnack’s view of the double tradition see Beginnings, vol. 
Ligaen: 
Be 


SAINT PAUL 


ot unclean (Acts x. 14). The little society had abandoned 
Galilee and settled in Jerusalem, as Jesus had commanded 
them. They were constantly occupied in their religious duty 
of worshipping in the Temple. It may be that some of the 
Pharisees, who we are told joined the Church, saw in the resur- 
rection a confirmation of their own favourite doctrine. At any 
rate, their school had no quarrel with people who vied with 
them in their observance of the Law, since their legalism did 
not interfere with the private opinions of those who obeyed the 
commands of Moses. 

Evidently, however, the new religion was spreading widely 
and rapidly as was to be expected. The Jewish world was 
sensitive to all that happened in Jerusalem and the preaching 
of the Risen Jesus must have been from the first widespread. 
Before Paul, a community, probably a synagogue, had been 
established in Damascus and the Gospel had reached Antioch. 
St. Paul was undoubtedly a great missionary of Christ, but 
there were many others, and he was not the first. The Church 
of Jerusalem was undoubtedly sending forth its preachers 
especially in southern Palestine from the beginning. Further, 
before Paul, Christianity was becoming bi-lingual by adopting 
the Greek language. Professor Torrey of Yale has endeav- 
oured with much learning and ingenuity to prove that not only 
was the spoken tongue of the infant Church Palestinian Ara- 
maic, a dialect resembling the ancient Hebrew but far more 
widespread, but that there existed a literature in the same lan- 
guage before the Christians employed Greek, his theory being 
that St. Luke used an Aramaic document when he wrote his 
Gospel and the earlier chapters of Acts. The late Professor 
Burney of Oxford has maintained a similar theory that the 
Gospel according to St. John was originally in Aramaic, a 
view held though not elaborated by earlier scholars in Ger- 
many going as far back as 1645.° From Acts vi we learn that 
there were Hellenistic (Greek-speaking) as well as Hebrew 


8See Beginnings, vol. ii, 133ff, for discussion of the theory of C. C. Torrey, 
of Yale, that Acts i-xv is a translation from an Aramaic document. This is 
to be found in the Harvard Theological Studies No. 1, (1916). 


52 


BEBOREVS Eo PAU LCAS+ CONVERSION 


(Aramaic-speaking) Jews almost from the first, and thus the 
dissemination of the Gospel in two widespread languages had 
begun, if not before the conversion of St. Paul, at least anterior 
to his appearance as a prominent figure in the Church. 

The question as to who were the leaders of the Christian 
movement before Paul is more difficult than might appear. 
Peter certainly was, but how about the rest of the Twelve? 
This demands our careful consideration. It would be nat- 
ural to assume that the leaders were the twelve men whom 
Jesus had chosen to be with Him; and this is confirmed by the 
first chapters of the Acts and supported by what we read 
in the Four Gospels. It is also the unvarying tradition of the 
Church. But when we come to inquire what is known of the 
Twelve Apostles with the exception of Peter and possibly 
John the son of Zebedee, the information at our disposal is 
indeed small. There is a general agreement throughout the 
New Testament that the Lord chose Twelve Apostles, evi- 
dently with the intention that they should, after careful train- 
ing by Him, take an important place in the New Israel. These 
Twelve are mentioned in the three first Gospels and in that 
according to St. John, in St. Paul’s Epistles and in the Book 
of the Revelation. In the first chapters of Acts the Twelve, 
with Matthias in place of the traitor Judas, are represented 
as witnesses, and, presumably, preachers of the Resurrection 
(Acts ii. 21), and leaders in the infant Church. The Christian 
tradition, universally accepted, is that on leaving Jerusalem 
the Twelve, reduced to eleven by the martyrdom of James 
the brother of John, divided the world among themselves and 
departed each to his respective sphere of missionary labour. At 
a comparatively early date they were credited with having 
legislated for the future of the Church, to have prescribed 
the form of its government and the ritual of its worship, and 
to have given laws in the form of Constitutions or Canons. In 
addition to this the story goes on to say subsequently that they 
formulated the creed of the Church, each contributing an 
article to what was popularly known as the Apostle’s Creed. 


53 


SOAR NA Dn Bes sale 


Each of them presided over churches ruled by bishops, who 
received from them the Apostolic Succession. 

Such then was and still is the theory of the Catholic Church. 
But when the historian proceeds to examine its foundations 
he is perplexed by the scantiness of the material. 

In the first place, whilst the lists of names are examined 
they are never exactly identical. Nor do any of them except 
Peter, James and John and, of course, Judas Iscariot, play 
any important part in the narrative of the first Three Gospels. 
In St. John they are here and there represented as speaking 
as individuals, but with the exception of Peter and Thomas 
none have any marked characteristics. In Acts Peter is the 
only one who speaks or acts, sometimes in association with his 
silent partner John; and later the Church of Jerusalem passes 
without any explanation under the rule of James, the brother 
of the Lord (Acts xii. 17). In the epistle to the Galatians 
the leaders of the Mother Church are James, Cephas, and 
John (Gal. ii. 9). The general impression left by a perusal 
of the New Testament is that the Twelve were important 
in the early Church; but that the only one of whom we have 
definite information is Peter. 

When we turn to the tradition of the Church we cannot 
fail to see that the earliest writers know as little about the 
members of the college of the Twelve as we do. Having 
no direct information the early Church fathers dispatched the 
Apostles to remote parts of the world and, except in Asia 
Minor and Greece, no part of the Roman Empire seems to 
have been evangelized by any of the Twelve. Scythia, 
Ethiopia, India are the spheres of their labours and no known 
Church at an early date claimed to derive its Episcopal suc- 
cession from any original Apostle except Peter and possibly 
John. The rest of the Twelve simply disappear." 

On the other hand, two of the Seven so-called deacons 


4Qne has only to refer to such a work as The Apocryphal New Testament, 
by M. R. James (Oxford, 1924) to realize that in the second century there was 
a great desire to know what the Twelve had done, and that the faithful had to 
be satisfied with incredible and not always edifying legends about them. 


54. 


Doe O RIG Sale | PAU lyys CONVERS TON 


played an important part in evangelization: Stephen, whose 
bold preaching in Jerusalem made him the first martyr, and 
Philip, whose labours are recorded in Acts. This Philip in 
later legend is inextricably confused with his namesake the 
Apostle. One of the Seven attains in legend to the more 
questionable fame of founding an heretical sect, alluded to in 
the Book of Revelation. 

Prominent among the leaders of the Church before Paul 
were the “brethren” of the Lord, especially James. These 
and the Mother of Jesus are mentioned among the company 
who were assembled at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. 
James, one of these “brethren,” became the head of the Jewish 
Christian body, apparently even superseding Peter at Jeru- 
salem. He represented a type of ascetic sanctity, intensely 
Jewish, which won him the respect of all the people. Even 
Josephus regards his death as one of the crimes which brought 
destruction upon the guilty city of Jerusalem. In his letter 
to the Corinthians Paul makes a casual allusion to “the breth- 
ren of the Lord,” whom he mentions with Cephas or Peter, 
as very active missionaries, and undoubtedly they played a 
very important part in the early days of the Christian Church 
Ole @orixe 5): 

As for Peter, legend gives him a position even greater than 
it does to Paul, and according to Acts he was the leader 
of the Church at its inception. He, and not Paul, was the first 
fyeanntoacns the Gentiles ase wellv asta preach @hrist): in 
Jerusalem. The tenth chapter of Acts which relates the con- 
version of Cornelius may or may not be historical. Some con- 
sider it a free composition of the author of Acts. Whatever 
it is, it is an admirably told story of the way in which a Gentile 
centurion and his friends were admitted to the Christian com- 
munity.” In Acts xv. 7 Peter declares that he was the pioneer 


5M. Loisy points out many literary defects in the relation of the baptism of 
Cornelius. Any one, however, who has heard Acts x. really well read in the 
Authorized Version will, I think, admit that whether strictly historical or not 
the story is admirably told. 
ois 


SsAUUNU Di ah pASUsle 


of carrying the Gospel to the Gentiles. His relation to Paul 
must be a subject for future discussion; his importance is 
unquestionable. 

Two very important Christian workers before Paul were 
Barnabas and John Mark. They were not among the original 
disciples of Jesus, though Barnabas evidently took a leading 
position at a very early period. His wealth, liberality and 
energy combined with his sweetness of disposition made him 
from the first a prominent member of the community, and the 
house of his kinswoman Mary, the mother of Mark in Jeru- 
salem, became the meeting place of the believers (Acts xii. 12). 

It was Barnabas who first recognized and made use of the 
great gifts of Paul. Despite his name Joseph, surnamed 
Barnabas (son of prophecy) and the fact that he is not known 
by any Gentile appellation, as a Jew of Cyprus he was prob- 
ably a Hellenist. 

We can now review the condition of the Church up to the 
time of St. Paul’s entering upon his recorded labours which 
can hardly be before the death of Herod Agrippa related in 
Acts xiii. Our only guide is the Acts of the Apostles; and 
as the history is presented in a series of brief sketches rather 
than in a continuous form, its omissions of facts which must 
have been known to the author leave many regrettable gaps 
in our information. | 

For example, it is assumed that there was a Christian Church 
in Damascus, though nothing has been said of the preaching of 
the Gospel outside Judea and Samaria. Even in the “We 
sections” long periods, e.g., the imprisonment at Czsarea in 
Paul’s life are passed over in silence. 

It is at least implied in the Gospels, except that of Luke, 
that the appearances of the Risen Lord took place in Galilee. 
But in the Lucan account events are centred in Jerusalem. 
There the Apostles were ordered to remain “till they were 
endued with power from on high.” The community num- 
bered about a hundred and twenty with the eleven Apostles, 
the women who had ministered to Christ, His brethren and 


56 


Bet RaW opin be AU on © O NiViEIR/ ST ON 


Mary His mother. The first act was to make up the number of 
the Apostles to Twelve, by appointing Matthias in place of the 
traitor Judas (Acts i. 15f.). | 

Then came the day of Pentecost when a vast number of 
Jews “from every nation under heaven” were assembled in 
the Holy City, the outpouring of the Spirit, the sign of the 
gift of tongues, and the public preaching of Jesus by Peter 
as a result of which three thousand Jews are said to have 
accepted baptism. The new converts were brought together 
and united in the “teaching of the Apostles, the fellowship, 
‘he breaking of bread and the prayers.” A society was then 
organized in which no one called anything he possessed “his 
own.” The believers were constantly to be found in the 
Temple and “breaking bread at home took their food with 
gladness, and simplicity of heart.”? It is specially noted that 
the Se of Jerusalem were favourable to them (Acts ii. 
43-47). 

The significance of this is that the followers of Jesus were 
devout Jews and the preaching of the Resurrection at first 
caused no hostility. 

Persecution began with the priestly authorities and the Sad- 
ducees taking offence at an address made by Peter to the people 
in Solomon’s porch within the Temple precincts after he and 
John had healed a lame man at the Beautiful Gate. The 
Apostles were arrested but the priests were, owing to the 
popularity of the new sect, unable to do more than forbid 
them to preach. The Apostles were once more arrested; but 
this time an “angel” opened the doors of their prison, when 
brought before the Sanhedrin they were dismissed. by the 
advice of Gamaliel, a famous Pharisee, after being beaten, 
and an injunction not to preach, which they disregarded (Acts 
v. 17-42). 

It is difficult to see how the believers in the Risen Christ 
were outwardly distinguished from the Jews around them. 
Admission by baptism was adopted; but except St. Peter’s 
words on the day of Pentecost: “Repent and be baptized and 


bye 


SADTN LG PeAC ue 


ye shall receive the gift of the holy Spirit,” there is no hint as 
to its significance; and in Chapter III, which some critics 
consider earlier than Chapter II, the Apostle exhorts to re- 
pentance and says nothing of Baptism. As to the fellowship 
or communion and the breaking of bread it is impossible to 
say whether the Lord’s Supper is here intended or not. 

With Chapter VI a new phase of the infant Church appears. 
The ideal of a common fund as it is found in the early 
section has made way for that of the Church as a charitable 
institution. ‘The Hellenistic Jews complain that the widows 
belonging to the Hebraic section are preferred to their poor 
‘Gn the daily ministration.” Accordingly the Apostles arranged 
that, as the Hebrews are'represented by the Twelve, the Hel- 
lenists should have Seven chosen by themselves to see to their 
interests. Doubtless these looked after their poor; but they 
soon surpassed the Twelve in their missionary zeal. 

Persecution now arises, not from the people of Jerusalem, 
nor from the priests, but from the Hellenistic synagogues in 
the city. Paul, or Saul as he is here called, now appears as 
a leader, not of the native Jews, but of the Hellenistic resi- 
dents. Stephen the most prominent of the Seven is stoned 
after a tumultuary trial, and the first blood is shed since the 
crucifixion of Christ. All the believers are scattered, as we are 
told, except the Apostles, and thus an attempt to preach Christ 
abroad was inaugurated, not by the Twelve, but by one of the 
Seven. Philip, whose name stands next to that of Stephen on 
the list in Chapter VI, goes to the city of Samaria, possibly the 
heathen city built by Herod the Great and called after 
Augustus (== Sebastos) Sebaste. Whether those to whom he 
preached with such success were pagans or Samaritans is not 
known, nor the nationality of his convert, Simon the Magi- 
cian who received baptism at his hands. At any rate a new 
stratum of converts had been discovered by the Hellenistic 
believers, to which the attention of the original Apostles at 
Jerusalem was directed. Peter and John came to the city 
of Samaria, withstood Simon and gave the gift of the Spirit 

58 


Der ORES FY PAUL AS CONVERSION 


to those whom Philip had baptized (Acts viii. 9-13).° Philip, 
as we were informed, went on with his missionary work inde- 
pendently, and his last exploit recorded was the conversion 
of the chamberlain of Queen Candace, of Ethiopia, whom he 
baptized. 

This was really the turning point in the career of Peter. 
Hitherto he had been the spokesman of the Twelve, the 
head of the Hebrew community at Jerusalem. Now he enters 
upon a missionary career in the cities of mixed nationality on 
the Mediterranean seaboard of Palestine. At last encouraged 
by a vision he boldly converts, baptizes and even eats with 
the Gentile centurion Cornelius. God through his mouth has 
declared salvation to the heathen. 

We learn from Acts that the Hebrew believers in Jerusalem 
looked on the activity of Peter with anything but favour. He 
had to explain his conduct towards Cornelius, and received 
what was perhaps a grudging approval; for in the next chap- 
ter it appears that the head of the Jerusalem community is 
not Peter but James the “brother” or kinsman of Jesus, a strict 
observer of the Law, whose prayerful asceticism was regarded 
as the perfection of Jewish piety. 

The Hellenists dispersed from Jerusalem had travelled 
northwards through Pheenicia and reached to Antioch which 
was destined to become for a time at least the Hellenistic 
capital of the Christians, for so the believers were called. 
Their missionary zeal extended to the heathen to whom Jesus 
was proclaimed as Lord. This time the Mother Church sent 
Barnabas to organize the extension of the Gospel, possibly as 
the recognized leader of the Hellenistic believers. We are 
informed that he recognized the ability of the newly converted 
Saul, for he is not yet called Paul, and that he brought him 
from his native Tarsus to codperate with the zealous mission- 


aries at Antioch. 


6A mass of tradition concerning Simon arose at a very early date. He 
was believed to have received divine honours at Rome, where St. Peter over- 
came him. The Samaritans declared Simon to be the “great power of God.” 
Was he a heathen? If so his baptism anticipates that of Cornelius. 


59 


SAIN IEPA WEL 


Thus at the time the labours of Paul began the Faith was 
widespread. As appears from his conversion there was a 
community already at Damascus, and the Gospel had been 
extended along the coast of Palestine and Syria. The Gen- 
tiles had been approached, Peter had become a missionary to 
the world at large and, though still in its infancy, the Church 
was already becoming widely diffused and quite possibly had 
attained a certain cohesion and organization. 


60 


THE BAS TER NODISPERSLON 


pn 3 sy?) 
a! en SPU 


$7) 
(2172 Zs ae 


(x1 5424) 
22] WYWeo 


* x * - 
i A yig01HL3 ‘ ~~ FF 4OWPRSOY MAN OY 4 
7 | SMaray7 fo UoIssodsig usajsvyqour 


_——— — = = — eee 


1dA9S PI YAg | 


JA 154? v) 


INIYAD 


(Is7?) 
3154) 


os 


j) St 





61 


CEA RINE R EGIL: 
EJATRG YN DIANy SO) Fa pusviy 


Pau. says of himself in his letter to the Corinthians that 
if any Jewish teacher of Christianity had reason to boast of an 
unblemished descent he had equal cause for glory. “Are 
they Hebrews” (z.e., using the Hebrew or Aramaic as their 
native ‘tongue)?) “So jam’ 1.?) “Are they visraeclites*aen 
members of the covenant nation)? “So am I. Are they of 
the race of Abraham? Soam I” (II Cor. xt. 22). On another 
epistle he tells the Philippians: “If any man has cause to 
boast of his earthly descent” or (“has confidence in the flesh”) 
“I have more reason to do so. I was circumcised on the eighth 
day. I am an Israelite by race, a member of the tribe 
of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrew stock. I belong 
to the legal party of the Pharisees, I showed my zeal by 
persecuting the Church, as an observer of the Law I was 
irreproachable” (Phil. ii. 4-5). 

In the Acts these words are attributed to Paul, in all prob- 
ability by one who was with him on his last visit to Jerusalem. 
At Jerusalem he is represented as saying to Claudius Lysias, 
the commander of the Roman garrison: “I am a Jew of Tarsus 
of Cilicia, a citizen of no obscure city.” Immediately after- 
wards he speaks of the crowd who hear him in silence because 
he addresses them in “Hebrew,” or rather in Aramaic: “I 
am a Jew of Tarsus of Cilicia, brought up in this city at the 
feet of Gamaliel, educated carefully to observe our native 
Law, as zealous for God’s cause as all of you are today” (Acts 
XX1. 39, xxii. 3). The next day he is said to have declared 
to the Jewish Sanhedrin: “Brethren in all good conscience I 
have been a loyal eitizen in God’s state”; and when hard 
pressed he cried out: “I am a Pharisee and the son of Phari- 


62 


Lees La Nes) tou PPA TL, 


sees” (Acts xxiii. 6). Indirectly it is implied that his home 
was in Tarsus; for when Barnabas wanted his help in evan- 
gelistic work, he went to Antioch “to seek for Saul” (Acts 
xi. 25). Paul was also a Roman citizen. In Acts he tells 
Claudius Lysias, who had bought the privilege, that he was 
one by birth (Acts xxii. 28). In his Epistles he repeatedly 
declares that he plied some trade by which he maintained 
himself by manual labour in order to be no burden to his con- 
verts. From Acts it appears that he was a tent-maker, but the 
meaning of the word used skénopoios (Acts xviii. 3) is doubt- 
ful. He was, however, evidently possessed of some private 
means. One who was destitute of all resources except his 
precarious earnings from a craft plied in the intervals of mis- 
sionary labour could never have written to Philemon about 
the runaway slave Onesimus “If he has wronged thee or 
owes thee aught, put it to my account. I Paul write with 
my own hand, I will pay it” (Philemon 18). In Acts the 
procurator Felix kept him a prisoner at Czsarea because he 
hoped that “money would be given him by Paul,” obviously 
to purchase his release. When a prisoner at Rome Paul was 
allowed to live in a private lodging at his own expense (Acts 
ene 20, XXVilie* 20,)." 

This is the evidence for Paul’s birth, upbringing and social 
status. That of the Epistles is unimpeachable, the more so 
in that it has no dogmatic significance whatever. That of the 
Acts may be of secondary value but is none the less prob- 
able because most of the statements quoted occur when the 
writer of the “We section” was in his company. At any rate it 
is all the information available. It can be questioned only 
by resorting to subjective criticism; but the historian must 
accept only the evidence at his disposal unless other facts can 
be brought forward to invalidate it. It seems therefore cer- 
tain that Paul was a Jew in the fullest sense of the word, con- 


1 That Paul’s actual birthplace was Tarsus has been questioned. Jerome says 
he was born at Giscala in Galilee. } Epiphanius relates a scandal circulated by 
the Ebionite Jews that Paul was a proselyte whose hostility to Judaism was 
due to his being prevented marrying the High Priest’s daughter. 


63 


SAU LN iG PACU 


scious that in his pedigree there was no Gentile admixture 
whatever. ‘That he came of a family in which devotion to 
the Law was hereditary, and that he had been educated in the 
schools of the Pharisees. He was a native of Tarsus of 
Cilicia, and bi-lingual, speaking Hebrew and Greek with equal 
facility. Finally he was by birth no obscure mechanic, but 
a man of some importance, and probably his kindred were 
not only highly respected but in easy circumstances, and if he, 
as he undoubtedly did at times, felt the pinch of poverty it 
was because he had sacrificed himself to a great cause. 

From this material the story of his early life may be con- 
structed with some probability. 

His home was Tarsus: and as that city was one of the intel- 
lectual centres of the age, it is a question whether he imbibed 
any of the Greek culture of his native place. This is not 
easy to answer. It is remarkable that the direct allusions to 
the classical writers are to be found in the doubtful writings 
and speeches of the Apostle (Acts xvii. 28; Titus i. 12). But 
on general principles no one would be more unlikely than 
he to make a display of literary culture in such of his writings 
as have survived. Paul was the last man who can be imagined 
as polishing his periods. He wrote or dictated his letters 
impulsively, and they reflect his mind at the moment. He is 
rarely logical, and sometimes scarcely grammatical. At times 
he rises to sublime heights of natural eloquence, at others his 
language is confused, sometimes he becomes almost. brutal 
in the vigour of his vituperation (Gal. v. 12; Phil. iii. 2). He 
displays all the unevenness of inspired genius. It may safely 
be said that he wrote Greek as he talked it; for the literary 
Greek of the age was practically an unspoken language. 

Still it is hardly conceivable that a boy, brought up in such 
an intensely Hebraic environment as Paul, should have fre- 
quented the Gentile schools, were it not for the fact that 
Philo of Alexandria, an uncompromising maintainer of the 
Law, was an eager student of Plato. At any rate Paul reveals 
little of the culture and none of the pedantry of the Greek 


64. 


MAP a ee TA Vanes Get, b AU; Ty 


writers of his age. When he wants to say or write anything, 
the last thing he evidently considered was the style in which 
he should express himself, and when he attains to sublime 
heights he does so by an unconscious effort which is truly in- 
spiration. Again and again it is necessary to impress on our 
minds the fact that of all men Paul is least fitted to be judged 
by a conventional standard. 

As to his education in Judaism, it is difficult to speak defi- 
nitely. Gamaliel the elder is a very shadowy figure in Jewish 
tradition. He was evidently an important link in the chain 
which connects Ezra and the men of the Great Synagogue with 
the rabbis of the Mishna. Yet very little is recorded of 
him, and what is may possibly refer to Gamaliel II who 
flourished later than St. Paul. It is noteworthy, however, 
that when Gamaliel appears in Acts it is to play a part entirely 
opposed to that of his disciple. In the fifth chapter when 
the priesthood of Jerusalem are desirous of killing the 
Apostles, Gamaliel advocates a policy of toleration, and even 
if, as seems probable, the speech put into his mouth is a com- 
position of the author’s, the attitude of Gamaliel towards the 
followers of Jesus is that of the Pharisees who were not 
wholly unfriendly to Judaic Christianity.’ 

The education of St. Paul as a Jew may be illustrated by 
what his younger contemporary Josephus tells us of his own 
course of studies. 

At the beginning of his earliest Greek work, the Wars of 
the Jews, Josephus says that it is “a translation of those books 
into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the 
language of our country, and sent to the ‘Upper Barbarians’ ” 
(Wars, Preface i), that is to the non-Greek-speaking peoples 
of Parthia and the East. He evidently means that he wrote 
in the Aramaic, a dialect akin to Hebrew, then current in the 


2There were two Gamaliels, the elder, who must have been Paul’s master, 
and the younger. Very little is known of the “elder,” but he was evidently 
highly honoured and bore the title of Rabban. He is not mentioned by Josephus 
The Jewish Encyclopedia says that the only evidence that he had a school is 
Acts xxii. 3. 
65 


ALIN A ART 17 


East. In the last book of the Antiquities he tells us that 
he took great pains to obtain a knowledge of Greek literature, 
and to learn the language. He could not succeed in speak- 
ing Greek correctly. “For,” he goes on to remark, “our 
people do not encourage us to learn the language of many 
nations, because they think that this can be done not only 
by freemen but even by slaves, and the only wisdom they 
prize is a knowledge of our Laws and the correct interpre- 
tation of the Scriptures” (Amtig. XX. i. 1). In his Léfe as 
well as in the Antiquities Josephus says that he was recognized 
as a youth and was still acknowledged to be preéminently 
learned in the Law of the Jews, and here his words remind 
us of St. Paul’s declaration to the Galatians that he had made 
more progress in Judaism than many of his contemporaries 
(Gal. 1. 14; Josephus, Life 2). 

From the statements of Josephus it may be legitimately 
inferred that the Jewish rabbis of the first century deliberately 
discouraged the pursuit of Greek learning, and that one who 
had been, like Paul, sent to Jerusalem to study under Gama- 
liel, would not have been allowed to learn the art of writing 
and speaking classical Greek. As has been said, he employed 
the spoken language of the period. 

The Jewish name of the Apostle was Saul, sometimes 
written in the Greek form Saulos, at others in the Hebrew 
S@oul (Acts vii. 58, ix. 4 and 17). In Acts he is introduced 
as Saul and becomes Paul in the thirteenth chapter after the 
conversion of the proconsul Sergius Paulus. Like many Jews 
of his age, as well as before and since his time, he bore a 
twofold name. It is possible that his father or grandfather 
may have obtained Roman citizenship as a client of some one 
named Paulus. This double character, that of a Jew speak- 
ing the language of Jerusalem, and of a Roman citizen able 
to use fluently the Greek of the period, qualified Paul to act 
as a mediator between the world of Israel and that of the 
Empire. It is also quite possible that he had a knowledge of 
Roman as well as Jewish law, which would account for the 


Pe An ilaey ae pA Vy oie Cheech Ae ULL, 


ability he displayed in his legal dealings with the Roman 
officials. 

As a Pharisee, Paul was a member of the same sect as 
Josephus, who has given more than one description of it. 
The Pharisees are esteemed most skilful in the exact explana- 
tion of the Law. (The word “exact” is practically the same 
in the Acts as it is in Josephus.) They believe that God has 
appointed to each man his destiny, yet they admit a moral 
freedom of the will. The soul they say is immortal, that of 
good men is given another body, the bad are punished eter- 
nally. The Sadducees, on the other hand, do not believe in 
destiny and assert that God has nothing to do with a man 
acting ill or well, but it depends entirely upon himself. Ac- 
cording to them the soul does not survive the death of the 
body (Antiq. XIII. x. 6; Wars I. v. 2). 

Josephus, 1t must be remembered, is writing for Gentile 
readers and has to explain himself in terms which they can 
understand, and to consider what would appeal to their inter- 
est. Naturally, therefore, his description of the Pharisees is 
not what we find in Rabbinical writers. Nevertheless, what 
he says is very instructive. The two rivals in Judaism repre- 
sent two schools which have always been in antagonism. In 
his day the Pharisees would have corresponded roughly with 
the Stoics, and the Sadducees with the Epicureans. The 
analogy only holds good in this respect. The Pharisees, like 
the Stoics as implied in their doctrine of recurrence, i.¢., that 
events happened in a predestined order and would do so again, 
held that Providence ruled all things, but refused to let this 
be an excuse for man disclaiming responsibility for men’s 
actions. Theirs was a strictly moral view of religion depen- 
dent on God. The Sadducees, on the other hand, inclined to 
the Epicurean philosophy, that God or the gods are indifferent 
to man’s doings and that all depends on individual choice. At 
bottom it is the old and apparently interminable dispute be- 
tween free-will and determinism, and as to whether man 
can or cannot do right without the special grace of God. 

67 


SA DN Ty ee ACUsL 


If Josephus’ description of the two sects is correct there is 
no doubt as to which influenced St. Paul.” 

But there is another aspect of the question. Josephus says 
that in their judgement the Pharisees were more lenient than 
their rivals. This is confirmed by the story of Gamaliel in 
Acts. Nevertheless, though a Pharisee, Paul was unques- 
tionably opposed to the principles of his master, and an advo- 
cate of Sadducean and priestly persecution of the followers of 
Jesus. For this the following explanation may be suggested. 
In the earlier chapters of Acts the molestation of the believers 
was confessedly occasional and abortive. At most the Apostles 
received a beating from the authorities, a very different thing 
from a brutal Roman flagellation. When we come to the 
story of the persecution about Stephen it was otherwise, and 
blood was shed for the first time. This attack was instituted 
by Hellenistic Jews, and the victim was a Hellenistic Jew. It 
appears that both sides had gone to extremes. The believers 
had declared that the religion of Jesus was subversive of the 
religion of the Temple and the customs prescribed by the Law, 
and their accusers were like themselves Greek-speaking Jews 
visiting Jerusalem. Saul or Paul was the leader, not of the 
anti-Christian Jews of Jerusalem, but of the Hellenistic Jews. 
He instigated the persecution against his rival Stephen and 
his followers, and when he carried it to Damascus he did so, 
not as a delegate of the Sanhedrin or the High Priest, but at 
his own special request, in answer to which the High Priest 
gave him letters to the Jewish authorities at Damascus. It 
seems therefore probable that Paul, in spite of his early edu- 
cation at Jerusalem, and the fact that Hebrew or Aramaic 
was spoken in his family circle, was an Hellenistic Jew. 

The Pharisaism in which St. Paul was educated at Tarsus 
and Jerusalem was undoubtedly not that which Josephus de- 
scribes—a philosophy interested in problems of the will. It 
primarily, however, concerned itself in the due observance 
of the Law. One has, however, only to read the first five 

3See Beginnings, vol. i, chap. iii, passim, “Thought and Practice in Judaism.” 


68 





PAG enn 1) 2A cYgoan teas PAI UT 


books of the Bible to realize that the literal fulfilment of 
every precept is impossible. The Law often presupposes a 
wandering community encamped nightly round a central sanc- 
tuary, and elsewhere a society of agriculturalists confined to 
a small country. The problem was how to make this law feas- 
ible under entirely different conditions. By insisting on the 
literal fulfilment of the Law the Sadducees made it impos- 
sible and thoroughly unattractive, with the result that no one 
except the priests at Jerusalem could attempt to observe it. 
Their rigourous interpretation seems to have made them un- 
popular, especially as they were considered to pursue a worldly 
policy. Very different was the attitude of the Pharisees, who 
set themselves to work to make the observance of the Law 
possible for all earnest Jews. By carefully collecting the “tra- 
dition” of the elders as to how the Law should be interpreted, 
and by distinguishing between what was possible and what 
could not be literally observed, they were constructing a new 
Judaism which was destined to survive the Temple, the down- 
fall of the Jewish state, and to endure to this day despite 
all the calamities of the nation. This Pharisaic Judaism, and 
not the older Judaism of the Temple and of the Hellenic 
Dispersion, became in the end the real rival of Christianity.* 

Not that Pharisaism ever made religion easy. The many 
traditional observances rendered any intimacy between Jew 
and Gentile almost impossible. It caused every Jewish house- 
hold to be a stronghold into which no Gentile could penetrate, 
and it carried out to the full the separation policy at which 
Ezra and Nehemiah had aimed centuries before. Pharisaism, 
nevertheless, was decidedly popular. Any sort of caste sys- 
tem which segregates men in religious groups has always been 
favoured in eastern lands. In addition to this Pharisaism was 
democratic. It made every individual in the Jewish world 
feel that he had a place in its peculiar religion, now no longer 
a matter confined to the priests of a local temple, but the 
business of every Jew in the world. 


“ Beginnings, vol. i, p. 136. The other Jewish sects looked back to the past; 
the Pharisees took count rather of the present and the future. 


69 


SAL NG aaa gy 


In this atmosphere the young Saul was brought up—I 
imagine in a strict, but wealthy, Jewish home, living among 
Gentiles but rigidly separated from them: a Roman by inheri- 
tance, yet a Jew by birth, proud of his ancestry, of his people, 
above all of his religion, devoted to the observance of his 
ancestral customs which he firmly believed to be the ordinance 
of God, a fanatic because of his intense patriotism and faith 
in the absolute perfection of the Law as well as in the high 
destiny in store for his nation. How far. he profited by his 
rabbinical training is not certain, and the question is com- 
plicated by the fact that, to judge by his letters, he was less 
proficient in the dialectic of the schools than Jesus. But then 
it must be borne in mind that Paul wrote mostly to mixed 
communities, in some of which Gentiles were more numerous 
than Jews, whilst the audiences of Jesus were almost ex- 
clusively Jewish. My own opinion is that Saul of Tarsus was 
regarded at Jerusalem as the rising hope of the Hellenistic 
party, and I hazard the conjecture that in his youth he cher- 
ished hopes of making Judaism as widespread among the 
Gentiles, as he succeeded later in propagating the faith in 
Jesus. 

This helps us to answer the question so frequently raised 
whether he was a member of the Sanhedrin. The probability 
appears to be that he was not. The persecution about Stephen 
was instigated by the Hellenists at Jerusalem (Acts vi). The 
priests of the Temple were the judges not the instigators of 
the trial. It was the synagogue of the so-called Libertini, of 
the Cyrenians, and other Greek-speaking Jews who resisted 
Stephen, who suborned the witnesses, who stirred up the 
people, the elders and the scribes, and who dragged Stephen 
before the Sanhedrin. After Stephen’s speech before the 
High Priest, there is no mention of any sentence of condemna- 
tion. ‘The furious mob of foreign Jews (as I understand) 
rushed upon Stephen and dragged him outside the city to 
stone him. The leader of these proceedings was Saul, who 
obviously went to carry the persecution to Damascus, not at the 
order of the High Priest but at his own request. It is almost 


70 


WAG ate DA SiO) lou POA UCL 


incredible that the writer of Acts meant to imply that Saul 
of Tarsus was one of the judges of Stephen. Rather he was 
the fanatical head of the party which brought about his 
death. 

It is also a debatable point whether St. Paul was ever 
married. A member of a Jewish family so strict in its observ- 
ance of the Law as his would naturally have been given a wife 
when he reached manhood. But it is idle to speculate on this 
point. Throughout his career as we know it the Apostle 
seemed to be quite independent of family ties. His sister’s 
son, a man of some energy and initiative lived in Jerusalem, 
and he mentioned “his kinsmen” in the Epistle to the Romans. 
Beyond this we have no information. 

It seems safer to infer that Paul was sprung from a Jewish 
family living at Tarsus, that his relations were of some im- 
portance and possibly wealth, that he was brought up in a 
devout home and received his education as a Jew in Jerusalem, 
though he was more conversant with Greek than the ancient 
Hebrew in which the Scriptures were written. It may be 
inferred that his education was almost entirely Jewish, and 
that he was regarded as one of the most zealous of the Greek- 
speaking branch of the Pharisees. This is all that can be said 
definitely about the Apostle before his conversion. 


71 


CEA Bri ER ay, 
THE CON VE RS ON (OR) St een 


WE have five accounts of the conversion of St. Paul and 
its attendant circumstances, supplemented by a description by 
the Apostle of his own religious experience, which last will 
demand careful consideration and is really of far more inter- 
est to us than the story itself. 

The Apostle twice speaks of his having been converted 
from a persecutor into an ardent worshipper of Jesus, and two 
speeches describing the event are put into his mouth in Acts, 
the writer having already given an account of his own. It 
may be as well to reserve the most important testimony fur- 
nished in the Epistle to the Galatians to the last, beginning 
with the narratives in Acts. The conversion of Saul, the in- 
stigator of the death of Stephen and what followed is related 
with dramatic power in the eighth and ninth chapters of Acts. 
As in other parts of the book there is occasionally a disappoint- 
ing lack of details with which we should gladly be acquainted 
in order to obtain an accurate idea of what actually happened, 
yet the interest 1s never allowed to flag as we are transported 
from one scene to another. 

First we witness the cruel death of the first martyr for 
Christ with the executioners casting their garments at the feet 
of a young man, named Saul, who was consenting to Stephen’s 
death. Unmoved, or rather excited to fury by the terrible 
spectacle, this man proceeds to further extremities, entering 
into the houses of the believers in Jesus, and arresting (hal- 
ing) * both men and women, committed them to prison (Acts 
Vil. 58, Vill. I-3, XXVi. 9-II). 

1 The word to “hale” is now obsolete; but in Cambridge the path by the Cam 


ve 


Pee OO NV IRS LO NiO ST o'P ATT Te 


Not content with what he had done in Jerusalem, Saul 
obtained from the High Priest leave to carry the persecution 
to Damascus with letters to the rulers of the synagogues, 
authorizing him to arrest those whom he might find “of that 
way,” for so the new religion was styled, whether they were 
men or women—notice the women are specially mentioned 
as in the previous section—and send them for trial to Jerusalem 
WeCtS 1x: 2); 

Saul was evidently accompanied by a body of “familiars” 
of this Jewish inquisition; and, as_ his company neared 
Damascus, he seemed to be surrounded by a bright light and 
as he fell to the ground to hear a voice saying “Saul, Saul, 
Why persecutest thou me? Go into the city and there it shall 
be told thee what thou oughtest to do.” When he rose he 
was completely blind. His companions did not understand 
what had happened, all they heard was a sound from heaven. 
They brought Saul to Damascus and left him blinded and 
refusing to eat or drink. His abandonment by his compan- 
1ons as a sick man, unable to continue his mission, makes what 
follows more easily understood (Acts ix. 8-9). 

Ananias, a disciple of the Christ at Damascus, is then warned 
by a vision of the Lord (i.e., Jesus) to go to Saul’s house in 
the “Street called Straight.” Ananias naturally remonstrates 
at a command to visit one who is known as a cruel persecutor 
of the brethren. He is reassured: “Go, for he is my chosen 
vessel, to bear my name before Gentiles and Kings and the 
children of Israel, for I will show him what he must suffer 
for my name’s sake.” Ananias obeyed, went to Saul and 
greeted him as a brother, whereupon the scales fell off his 
eyes and he immediately received baptism, took food, and was 
himself again (Acts ix. 10-18). 

Saul, to the astonishment of all, appeared in the syna- 
gogue, and, to the confusion of the Jews in Damascus proved 
that Jesus was the Son of God (the only example of this 
where the barges were hauled by horses to the town is still known as the 


“Haling Way,” and a student ordered to appear before the authorities is said to be 
“hauled” or “haled.” 


Fs 


SAWN PAM its 


expression in Acts) and the Christ (Acts ix. 21, 22). This 
naturally provoked them; and a plot was made to kill him. 
The disciples of Jesus, however, managed to lower him down 
the wall of the city in a large basket and he escaped (Acts 
‘bed codcgy TMU OF eyatty-eyae day be 

We next find Paul at Jerusalem where the disciples refused 
to receive him till Barnabas took him into their midst and 
related what had happened to him. Being accepted as a fol- 
lower of Jesus he became an active missionary to the 
Hellenistic Jews whose leader he had formerly been. These 
too sought his life; but by the aid of the disciples he was able 
to reach Czesarea and to go to his home in Tarsus (Acts ix. 
26-30). 

ee two speeches, in which the conversion is related, are 
in Acts xxii, an address to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, and 
in xxvi, in his defence to Herod Agrippa II. In each of 
these the details differ in some respects, but the main facts 
are the same. 

This brings us to the Apostle’s own description of the inci- 
dent. He says nothing of the actual vision on his way to 
Damascus; but he insists that he has really seen the risen 
Lord Jesus. He does not mention the vision of Ananias, 
alluded to in Acts ix and xxii, nor his baptism. But he writes 
of his escape from Damascus to the Corinthians. “In Damas- 
cus the ethnarch of Aretas the king was guarding the city of 
the Damascenes to take me, and I was let down from a 
window in a basket over the wall and I escaped their hands.” 
This confirms the story in Acts but gives it a different com- 
plexion. Paul’s preaching had provoked enmity apparently 
outside as well as inside Damascus, and the heathen Aretas 
Was as anxious to capture him as the Jews. The city gates 
were watched by the Arab soldiers, and Paul could only escape 
from some part of the wall where no sentries were posted 
(II Cor. xi. 32-33). Finally there is the important statement 
in the letter to the Galatians. This must be read before it 
can be discussed. The words of the Apostle are: 


74 


plobirta CLONE VE RS LOIN @O by S.P ey PA UL 


For ye heard of my former behaviour in Judaism how 
excessively I used to persecute the church of God and 
ravage it, and I advanced beyond my contemporaries in 
Judaism, and was extremely zealous for my ancestral 
traditions. But when it pleased God who separated me 
from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace to 
reveal his son in me that I might preach him among 
the Gentiles, I took no human counsel (literally “with 
flesh and blood”), nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those 
who had been Apostles before me, but I went into 
Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. Then after 
three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and 
I remained with him fifteen days. And others of the 
Apostles I did not see, but only James the brother of the 
Lord. Now what I write to you, before God is no lie. 
Then I went into the distriets of Syria and Cilicia (Gala- 
tians i. 13-21). 


This solemn testimony differs materially from the narrative 
in Acts. Nothing is said of the intervention of Ananias, nor 
of the preaching at Damascus immediately after the conver- 
sion. On the contrary, Paul says expressly that he withdrew 
immediately to Arabia without consulting anybody. This 
appears more probable than the version of Acts. That the 
persecutor should have, so to speak, vanished for a time and 
reappeared in Damascus to preach Jesus as the Messiah is 
more natural than that he should at once have entered the 
synagogues and announced his conversion. Nor is it likely 
that till some time had elapsed he should have gone to Jeru- 
salem, where he had been known as a violent opponent of the 
very cause he had espoused. 

It is not easy to say exactly what happened amid so much 
conflicting testimony, all, including that of Paul himself, 
given some years after the event. It is only by conjecture 
that we can construct a connected story. All that can be said 
definitely is that Acts ix appears to compress into a few verses 
events extending over some time. Paul says that three years 


75 


STACIAN lL eeP ASCs 


elapsed before he went to Jerusalem to visit Peter. From 
the first, however, the movement into which he threw his 
energies seems to have been Hellenistic rather than Hebraic; 
and he both persecuted and preached Christ as a Greek-speak- 
ing Jew. From Galatians and even from the Acts we. can 
infer that his intercourse with the Hebrew-speaking Chris- 
tians in Jerusalem was both occasional and slight. Damascus 
was, although apparently at this time outside the nominal 
frontiers of the Roman world, a Greek-speaking city, and 
the Jews living there were Hellenists. In Acts Paul spoke 
to the Hellenists in Jerusalem (Acts ix. 29); and in Galatians 
he implies that after his visit to Arabia his early work was in 
Syria and Cilicia (Gal. i. 21). But the real difficulty is raised 
by what Paul goes on to relate to the Galatians about him- 
self. Though he was unknown personally to the Churches 
of Judza in Christ, yet his fame as a preacher among the Gen- 
tiles had spread abroad, and he adds, “They were glorifying 
God in me.” This went on for fourteen years, making seven- 
teen since the conversion. The writer of Acts has nothing 
to tell us of this long period; not, it should be noted, of retire- 
ment, but of active missionary labour among the Gentiles; and, 
even if allowance is made for great compression and much 
omission in the very brief narrative of Acts (ix. 26-30, xi. 
19-30), relating to Paul’s doings from his first visit to Jenisa= 
lem to the sending forth of the mission to Antioch, it is difficult 
to reconcile it with the statements in Galatians. 

Acts tells us that Paul after being converted and preaching 
Christ in Damascus escaped and went to Jerusalem, where 
he tried to join the society of the Disciples. They would 
not believe in the genuineness of his conversion, till Barnabas 
introduced him and explained that it was a real vision; and 
that Paul had shown much boldness in Damascus. At 
Jerusalem Paul preached and disputed against the Hellenistic 
Jews in the name of the Lord (Acts ix. 28). They tried to 
kill him, and the brethren sent him by way of Czsarea to 
Tarsus. There is no hint as to how long Paul was at Tarsus, 
but a note is appended to the above account which may cover 


76 


ere ON Var RSL GaN Guin Sil." PANU L 


some considerable period, and at any rate shows how little we 
know of the progress of the Faith for the first twenty years 
after the Resurrection. 

“The Church then in all Judea and Galilee and Samaria 
had peace, and was being built up, and advancing in the 
fear of the Lord and in the consolation of the Holy Spirit, 
was multiplying” (Acts ix. 31). This is the only mention 
outside the Gospels of any preaching in Galilee. It is fol- 
lowed by the narrative of Peter’s preaching in Lydda and 
Sharon, and that of the conversion of Cornelius. 

Then we are abruptly transferred to Phcenicia, Cyprus, and 
Antioch, where those who were dispersed from Jerusalem 
by the persecution about Stephen are preaching to Jews only 
(Acts ix. 19). Some from Antioch address the ‘“Hellenists” 
and Barnabas is sent from Jerusalem to supervise what is 
obviously meant to be considered a new movement. As the 
Church increases, Barnabas goes to Tarsus to find Saul. So 
far as St. Luke or the writer of his source knew, Paul, having 
been driven out of Jerusalem, had gone home to Tarsus 
Acts ix. 30), and remained there till Barnabas brought him 
to Antioch (Acts xi. 26). It is hard to imagine that Acts 
desires to convey the impression that nearly fourteen years 
had elapsed between Paul’s visit to Jerusalem where he 
preached to the Hellenists, and his arrival at Antioch in com- 
pany with Barnabas. 

On the whole, however, the account in Acts seems more 
probable than that which Paul gives of himself, if we take 
his words literally. Still, though both Acts and Galatians 
were written later than these events, Paul’s own statement 
must be preferred as direct evidence. 

Yet it must be confessed the statements in Galatians are 
difficult to understand; for it is not easy to think that Paul 
spent all these years as an active ministry among the Gentiles 
without any apparent result, especially as in Acts xiii it is 
evident that Barnabas and he were supposed to be undertaking 
a mission from Antioch, which was a step far in advance of 


77 


SAINT PAUL 


anything previously recorded, namely to go far afield and 
work among the Gentiles. Emphasis will be laid on this 
point in the chapters which follow, and all that can here be 
done is to point out a difficulty which can only be explained 
by hypotheses which are founded on no evidence whatever. 
It is of course possible that Paul did, as he says, work for 
close on seventeen years among the Gentiles, almost if not 
entirely unsupported, and that his labours were so fruitless 
that no record of them remains. Perhaps the most ingenious 
suggestion is that of Professor Lake that the “fourteen years” 
is a mistake, and that really only four are meant—in Greek 
(6 == 14, and tis but a small letter. But this though it simpli- 
fies the problem, is supported by no text or version of the 
Pauline Epistles. All we can do is to put the facts on record, 
and leave them unexplained, and perhaps unexplainable. It 
must, however, be remembered that a great success, such as 
that of Paul as a missionary, is frequently prepared for by 
many apparent failures which are likely to be forgotten. 
My own view is that he preached, as Acts implies to Jews 
(ix. 22), and to Hellenists (ix. 29), but made no attempt 
to found Gentile churches, till he reached Antioch in Pisidia 
(Acts xii. 44ff). 

The facts of the vision near Damascus, and of the subse- 
quent movements of Paul immediately afterwards fade, how- 
ever, into insignificance as compared with a description Paul 
possibly gives of his own mental condition and the way in 
which he found peace and satisfaction in accepting Jesus Christ 
as his Master.’ One of the most interesting experiences in 
religious autobiography, the real inner motives which led to the 
great change in the Apostle, may be disclosed in his Epistle 
to the Romans./ These few verses are of greater psychological 
interest than even St. Augustine’s beautiful but lengthy account 
of his “Conversion.” In writing to the Roman Christians, St. 
Paul is endeavouring to show that the Law which Moses gave 
to Israel, though good in every respect, was the cause of the 
condemnation of such as knew it. Not because there was 


78 


pie Ly Bah COUN Vay he St ON Ohne Sop ae DLACT TT 


anything amiss in it; quite the contrary, for it was divine, 
but because no mortal man had the power to keep it in its 
entirety. It revealed the will of God, and the way men 
should live, but as no one could observe its every precept, 
it did not save, but only pointed out how far man had gone 
astray from God. Thus instead of saving mankind, it only 
revealed the state of ruin into which all had fallen. So the 
Law was “holy, just, and good,” and at the same time, not 
life, but death to the human race. 

Why was it so? Because the Law being spiritual is too good 
for man, who after all is flesh and blood, that is weak, fallible, 
and unable to satisfy all its demands. Then Paul gives his 
own personal experience. 

“We know that the Law is a spiritual thing, but I as 
flesh and blood am the slave of sin. Being such I desire 
to do what is right, but I have no power to perform it. If I 
do things in my weakness which I hate to do, it means that 
in my conscience I acknowledge that God’s law is good. But 
my human nature is so weak, and sin so powerful that I can- 
not obey it. I am therefore in a wretched plight, anxious to 
do right but unable through the flesh to do other than sin. 
‘Who shall deliver me from this body which is nothing but 
death??” (Rom. vii. 24). The answer to this question is that 
God delivered his servant from this state of misery by the 
Lord Jesus Christ, who has destroyed sin in the believer that 
he may become able to serve God (Rom. viii. 1-14). 

This account of the inward struggle which went on in the 
heart of St. Paul is certainly much later than his conversion. 
It may be that he is relating an experience which came to him 
long after he had declared his allegiance to Jesus, or it is 
possible that Paul’s language is intended to be, not personal, 
but rhetorical. Still it is at least permissible to imagine that 
something of the kind was going on within him, when he was 
a zealot for the Law. For his “conversion”? was not of a 
profligate to a life of virtue, but of an intensely devout man 
from one profound conviction to another. As he says of his 


79 


5 ASUNV Dp RoAa We 


countrymen in this same letter to the Romans, “I bear them 
witness that they have a zeal for God but not according to 
knowledge” (Rom. x. 2). Paul as a persecutor of the Church 
was as enthusiastic a follower of the Law, as he subsequently 

was of the Christ, though it is remarkable how rarely the 
Apostle alludes to the acts and words of Jesus during His 
ministry. 

It was his devotion to the Law which made him so bitter 
against the new sect, especially as it appeared among Greek- 
speaking Jews; for Stephen and his friends had evidently 
gone far beyond the original followers of Jesus, whose obedi- 
ence of the Law, as we have seen, won them the favour of 
the people of Jerusalem (Acts ii. 47). Stephen was accused 
of speaking against Moses and God and declaring that Jesus 
would destroy the Temple, and change the customs which 
Moses had delivered (Acts vi. 13-14). This leaves the 1m- 
pression that the Greek-speaking Jews had embraced the 
belief in Jesus, not as the original disciples had done as the 
perfection of obedience to the revealed law, but as contain- 
ing a message with world-wide possibilities. Saul of Tarsus 
and his party saw the danger to strict legalism, and, in their 
enthusiasm for the Law, resolved to nip it in the bud. 

But it is conceivable that, when a man’s zeal becomes most 
ardent, doubt may begin to insinuate itself. St. Paul may have 
found even at this time that the more he studied the Law 
and the Tradition, the harder it was to be true to their pre- 
cepts. His sensitive conscience may have reproached him with 
many half involuntary breaches, even on its moral side of the 
Law which he felt bound to keep in its entirety. It is also 
not impossible that Paul in common with other Hellenistic 
Jews cherished the hope that their religion might become 
world-wide, and for this reason had seen in Stephen and his 
adherents at Jerusalem men, who by preaching Jesus, might be- 
come formidable rivals. Just as at a later period persecution 
was raised against Paul himself, because his preaching in the 
synagogue was so attractive to the Gentiles, the future Apostle 

8G 


arte GO Va lishe ol aN be Siti PeA Ui 


may have inspired the attack on Stephen; and this would 
explain his mission to Damascus, which was largely a heathen 
city. 

“/1n this way two factors, possibly unperceived by himself, 
may have codperated to produce the great change which we 
call the Conversion of St. Paul, dissatisfaction with the power 
of the Law to make him conform to the Will of God, and the 
realization that the future religion of the world would be 
either Pharisaic Judaism, or the new belief in Jesus. To so 
ardent a spirit as his Jesus was absolutely wrong or absolutely 
right, and there was no middle way. Either the believers 
must be rooted out, or he must join their ranks. 

7 His sudden, and so to speak, miraculous conversion has in 
modern times been employed to discredit the mental balance 
of St. Paul. The fall to earth, the bright light, the heavenly 
voice, the subsequent blindness, the abrupt change which fol- 
lowed, are used as proofs that the Apostle cannot be regarded 
as a normal human being, and consequently that his words and 
actions must be considered with some mistrust. But normal 
men have never yet seriously modified the course of history, 
nor directed the thought of mankind for many generations. 
The world is not changed by commonplace men with 
supremely average experiences. Paul was certainly abnormal 
in many ways. His health was evidently feeble, yet he lived 
to the verge of old age and endured hardships which would 
have killed most men with a perfect constitution. His visions, 
trances, periods of exultation and depression, are such as are 
frequently experienced by exceptional individuals. If what he 
calls his “thorn in the flesh the messenger of Satan sent to 
Butet him? (11 Cor: xii. 7-9; cf Galvivew3)- was a recur- 
rence of epileptic fits, men who have merited for good or 
for ill the title of great have been similarly afflicted, as were 
Alfred the Great of England and Napoleon. It is folly to 
deny greatness or to minimize the power of a man’s influence, 
because he was not exactly like what a modern physician would 

' wish his patients to be. But as this narrative will, 1 hope, dis- 

81 


S ASLIN Gene ale 


close, the most abnormal fact about St. Paul was, not that he 
was, as alleged, an epileptic enthusiast, but that he possessed 
clearness of mind and a power of guiding men, and in addi- 
tion an exceptional sanity of outlook, and that rare quality 
which we call common sense. 


82 


CHAPTER VI 
BARNABAS AND SAUL 


OutsipE the circle of the Twelve and the brethren of the 
Lord the most important of the early Christians was certainly 
Joseph surnamed Barnabas. Despite his two Hebraic appel- 
lations, and the fact that he joined the community of believers 
_ before Stephen and the Hellenists appeared on the scene in 
Jerusalem, Barnabas was a native of Cyprus and therefore 
a Greek-speaking Jew. In wealth and also in knowledge 
of the outside world he had an advantage over the simple 
Galileans who ranked as Apostles. When the brethren were 
attempting to organize themselves on communistic lines, 
Barnabas, we are told, sold a property in or near Jerusalem 
and gave the proceeds to help their experiment (Acts iv. 
36-37). Mary, probably his sister (Col. iv. 10), owned a 
spacious house in the city in which the believers could assemble 
(Acts xii. 12). He was, therefore, in a sense a wealthy 
patron of the infant Church. He, Mary, and her son John 
Mark, are the first prominent figures outside the circle of 
those who had been personally associated with Jesus. 

Little as we know about him, he appears to have had a 
most attractive personality with exceptional capacity for propa- 
gating the new religion. He evidently had an eye for men 
of ability who were likely to further the cause; and it was he 
who was the first to recognize the great qualities of Saul of 
Tarsus. So far as we are able to gather from the narrative 
of Acts vili-x, the preaching of the Seven and even of Peter 
was confined to Palestine, and it was Barnabas who trans- 
ferred the centre of missionary activity to Antioch in Syria, 
the capital of the entire East (Acts xi. 22-25). For some 
years St. Paul takes a very secondary place in comparison with 


83 


SATIN Area abs 


Barnabas even in the missionary effort to reach the Gentiles. 
This fact, too frequently overlooked, is very significant. 

It is a matter for regret that the only mention of Barnabas 
in the Acts is to be found in the sources employed by the 
writer, and not in his personal narrative. Even from these 
a somewhat consistent portrait is recognizable. He was a 
Levite, a native of Cyprus, surnamed Barnabas “son of con- 
solation or prophecy” by the Apostles. His first recorded 
act was as has been mentioned to sell land and give the money 
to the Church (Acts iv. 36-37). When the disciples at 
Jerusalem refused to believe in Paul’s conversion, it was Bar- 
nabas who convinced them of its genuineness and brought the 
future Apostle to them “taking him by the hand” (Acts ix. 
27). Barnabas next appears at Antioch where certain other 
natives of Cyprus and also men from Cyrene had preached 
Jesus to the Hellenists. Having been sent by the Church of 
Jerusalem to investigate this new movement, Barnabas threw 
himself heartily into it, and recognizing that he needed help, 
went to Tarsus where Paul, according to Acts xi. 25, was living 
apparently with his family in retirement, and enlisted his 
help. In this connection a note of praise, rare in Acts, is given 
for Barnabas. “He was a good man and full of the Holy 
Ghost and faith” (Acts xi. 24). 

Barnabas was not unmindful of the needs of the Church 
which he had so materially assisted, when the famine foretold 
by Agabus occurred; and he took Saul with him to Jerusalem 
with the contribution he had raised at Antioch. This marks 
a stage in the transference of influence from Jerusalem to the 
larger cities of the world, and the breaking up of the early 
Judean form of the hope in Jesus and the birth of Chris- 
tianity, by which name at this very time the Faith began to 
be known. The Church had originated as a community of 
devout and simple Israelites who clung to the Holy City and 
its Temple, and were content to live in poverty and obscurity 
on a common fund, making no provision for the future, with 
the result that a period of scarcity and high prices brought them 
to the verge of extinction. Thus the Christian community 


84 


BARNABAS AND SAUL 


at Jerusalem becéme more increasingly dependent on the 
churches outside; and, despite its prestige as the first home of 
the faith and the scene of the death, resurrection, and ascen- 
sion of the Lord, gradually lost the authority it had at the 
first enjoyed. This was a distinct gain to the Church at large, 
which could now expand and be free to extend its influence 
in every part of the world, unfettered by the restraint of being 
under the conservative Judaism of Jerusalem. 

I am personally disposed to believe that this visit of Barna- 
bas and Saul to Jerusalem may mark a real crisis in the career 
of the great Apostle, as well as a turning point in the history 
of the Church. If Paul, as he says in Galatians, only visited 
the Holy City to see Cephas for fifteen brief days, this must 
have been his first real introduction to the Church. Ac- 
companied by Barnabas, the most honoured representative of 
Hellenistic Christianity, and once more introduced as a friend 
whom Barnabas believed to be a chosen instrument of God for 
the conversion of the outside world, Paul must have obtained 
a recognition which he had not previously enjoyed; and it 
is quite possible that Barnabas may have given the rulers of 
the Mother Church some idea of the work which the An- 
tiochan Christians had in contemplation. At any rate Barnabas 
and Saul returned “to” or “from” Jerusalem (the reading 
being uncertain) having fulfilled their ministry, taking with 
them John whose surname was Mark.* 

This brings us to the momentous decision of the Church of 
Antioch, reached by its five leaders not without divine 
guidance. 

Of these five three are no more than names to us, though 
they are worthy of record. All were evidently Hellenistic 
Jews and represented different countries of the Dispersion. 
Barnabas came from Cyprus, Lucius from Cyrene, the province 


1The reading in Acts xii. 25 is ess = to, which makes no sense. Dr. Ropes 
in his note in Beginnings, vol. iii, p. 114, suggests that the preposition may 
mean “at.” It has been suggested that in view of what Paul says in Galatians 
i, the author of Acts may have inadvertently inserted his name here and in 
Acts xi. 30. 


85 


Sik LIN ae aie 


in North Africa next to Egypt, the country of Simeon sur- 
named Niger is not mentioned, nor that of Manien the foster- 
brother of Herod Antipas, evidently a personage of social im- 
portance, who must at this time have been an elderly man; 
last on the list is Saul of Tarsus (Acts xiii. 1-3). 

They are described as prophets and teachers and had evi- 
dently met in solemn conclave. Inspired by the Holy Spirit’s 
words, “‘Separate unto me Barnabas and Saul to the work unto 
which I have called them,” they fasted and prayed and, hav- 
ing laid their hands on them, they sent them forth. The 
writer of Acts evidently desired us to realize the importance 
of this step. These five leaders of the Antiochian Church 
were undertaking a great task; and they realized something 
of its magnitude. They had spent a long time in supplication; 
and, as inspired prophets, they made the great decision which 
was no less than to inaugurate a Christian mission destined to 
extend to the whole world. The three pioneers of this great 
work were Barnabas, the representative of the earliest com- 
munity at Jerusalem, Saul, once prominent as a leading Phari- 
see, now miraculously convinced that Jesus was his Lord, and 
the young kinsman of Barnabas, John Mark, who came as the 
assistant of the two older men. Like many other famous en- 
terprises this mission began unambitiously. The scene was 
to be Cyprus, the native home of Barnabas. I do not believe 
that the Gentiles were included in this scheme of evangeliza- 
tion despite the fact that before the three had started on their 
journey some missionaries of Christ, who were Cyprians and 
Cyrenians are said (according to most authorities) to have 
spoken to the Greeks in the sense of heathen * (Acts xi. 20). 
Barnabas and Saul are said to have preached in Salamis, the 
most easterly city in Cyprus, “in the synagogues of the Jews,” 
and there is no mention of Gentile converts. The approach 
to the outside world may possibly not have been the original 


The oldest manuscripts have Hellenists, the majority Hellenes = Greeks or 
heathen. The versions cannot help in the subtle distinction between the twa 
words. The preaching to Greeks does not necessarily mean that Gentile churches 
were being founded for them. 

86 


BAUS DV ADR AD Su AON: IDS AUT 


idea, but an outgrowth, perhaps unexpected, of their expe- 
dition. 

The island of Cyprus had long been known to the Asiatic 
world and is mentioned in the very early days of the Sumerian 
and Babylonian kings. It is the Kittim of the Old Testament: 
under the Greek domination of Egypt it became an appanage 
of the Ptolemys, sometimes as an independent kingdom ruled 
by a member of the family. It came under Roman rule in 
B. Cc. 58. Its chief deity was Aphrodite, or Venus, who was: 
supposed to have risen out of the sea on the shore of the, 
island. Her principal shrine was at the western end at Paphos. 
But the goddess worshipped was not the beauteous Aphrodite 
of Greece, nor Venus the ancestress of the Julian family in 
Rome, though both were adored in her. Her shrine con- 
tained no fair image of a woman but a conical-shaped stone, 
reminding us of the “image” of the Diana or Artemis of 
Ephesus, who was really some Asiatic divinity represented 
by the stone “which fell from heaven.” ‘The Cyprian god- 
dess was probably originally from Syria, the Astarte or Ishtar 
of the Semites and their neighbours. The Jews of Cyprus were 
certainly numerous. Herod the Great obtained from Augus- 
tus a valuable concession of the copper mines in the island, 
and both Philo and Josephus imply that it was largely peopled 
by Jewish settlers. Later, the Jews were so numerous, formi- 
dable, and ferocious, that in the days of Trajan in a. p. 116, 
they are said to have murdered no less than two hundred and 
forty thousand Greek inhabitants. For this they were for- 
bidden in future to so much as land on the island. Cyprus 
produced in Zeno the philosopher, whose stern morality seems 
to have had an affinity to that of St. Paul, and in the fourth 
century possessed the very learned Christian bishop St. Epi- 
phanius. It has twice passed into the hands of an English 
monarch, once in the days of that crusading king, Richard I, 
who captured it from Isaac Comnenus in 1191, and afterwards 
sold it to the Knights of the Temple, and again in 1878 when 
it was ceded by the Turks to Queen Victoria. The Church of 


87 


SAINT PAUL 


Cyprus has long been “autocephalous,” that is independent 
of all external authority and subject only to its archbishop. 

Barnabas, Saul and Mark, we are told, traversed the whole 
of this fertile and populous island, which contained several 
important cities but Acts gives no account of their adventures, 
and says nothing of the success of their mission till they 
reached the western shore and arrived at Paphos, then the seat 
of the Roman government, where a momentous crisis in their 
mission occurred. 

The “Deputy,” as he is styled in the Authorized Version 
which gives him the title then applied to the viceroy of Ire- 
land, was Sergius Paulus who is described in Acts as “a man 
of understanding.” In Greek he is called anthupatos the 
equivalent of the Latin Proconsul. This shows the accuracy 
of the historian. Since the days of Augustus the Roman 
provinces had been divided between the Emperor and the 
Senate. The arrangement was that those which required a 
military force should be governed by a man nominated by 
Cesar, and that the more settled and lucrative provinces should 
remain in the hands of the Senate who appointed a proconsul 
to administer them. Some years before Cyprus had been an 
imperial province but an exchange had been effected and 
Sergius Paulus is correctly given the proconsular designation. 

He had by him a Jew named Bar-Jesus who is described 
as a magician and a false prophet, and is not unnaturally com- 
pared to Simon Magus, whom Peter rebuked when he went 
with John to confirm Philip’s converts in Samaria. But the 
circumstances as given in the two accounts in Acts are so dif- 
ferent that the comparison appears to be somewhat superficial. 
Simon was possibly not a Jew at all, but a man who claimed 
supernatural gifts as “the power of God which is called great.” 
His offence was, not that he withstood Peter, on the contrary, 
he accepted baptism, but that he saw in the Apostle’s gift of 
the Holy Spirit a more powerful magic than he himself 
possessed, and offered money to purchase it (Acts viii. 9-24). 
Bar-Jesus, on the other hand, is represented as a Jewish rival 

88 


Be RON a BAS A, NE Das AU) 


of the preaching of Barnabas and Saul who strove to prevent 
the Proconsul from accepting their message, and nothing is 
said of his exercising any magical power, but that he was a 
“magus,” and also a false prophet in contrast with the true 
prophets Barnabas and Saul. I venture to suggest that Sergius 
Paulus had a Jewish teacher in his household, because he was 
interested in that religion; and Bar-Jesus, as Josephus did 
when taken captive by Vespasian at a later time, professed 
to be a prophet and doubtless invested with miraculous powers. 
But on this occasion all that Bar-Jesus did was to endeavour 
to “turn the proconsul from the faith.” This looks as though 
he were a Jewish rabbi opposed to the new doctrines. 

If, however, Bar-Jesus, as his other name of Elymas or 
Etoimos may imply, was a magician, his connection with 
Sergius Paulus would be an indication of the superstition of 
the higher classes in the Roman world as well as of the con- 
flict between Christianity, and the charlatans who regarded it 
as a species of rival magic. A Sergius Paulus is mentioned 
as interested in natural history, by Pliny the Elder, who wrote 
about twenty years later than the mission to Cyprus; and 
if he is the same person his inquiring mind may have led 
him to take an interest in Judaism, especially as at this time 
there was evidently some attraction in that religion for the 
educated Roman world. Its profession of a lofty morality, 
its worship of a nameless God who had no image and could 
only be conceived by faith contributed to its success, and in 
addition there was a feeling that the Jew, repulsive as he 
might appear to many, had powers which were denied to other 
men. Both causes may have contributed to bring Bar-Jesus 
to the Proconsul, whose curiosity may have led him to send 
for the newly arrived preachers of what he regarded as some 
new form of Judaism.° 


3The story of the conversion of Sergius Paulus is full of difficulties. It is 
curious that we never hear, even in tradition, of so distinguished a convert. 
Bar-Jesus is a mysterious figure and the name Elymas, Etumas, or Etoimos is, 
to say the least, strange. 


89 


S ALIN MT cheat 


It was the opposition of Bar-Jesus which brought Paul to 
the front. As we read: 


But Saul, who is also Paul, filled with a holy spirit fixed 
his eyes on him and said, O thou who art filled with all 
craft and cunning, son of the devil, enemy of all right- 
eous, wilt thou not cease to turn aside the right ways of 
the Lord? (Acts xiii. 9-10). 


_The author of Acts here gives the Apostle the name by 
which he was destined henceforth to be known. Much in- 
genuity has been expended since the days of the early fathers 
of the Church to account for the change. Some suggest that 
Saul became Paul in compliment to Sergius Paulus, or it may 
be that his father had been a client or freedman of the family 
of Paulus; it is also suggested that the Apostle was then known 
because of his diminutive stature and frail appearance. All, 
however, we can be sure of, as has been said before, is that 
in common with many of his countrymen, he had a Jewish and 
a Gentile name and that when he took the lead in carrying 
the Gospel outside of Israel he was called Paul by the sacred 
historian, and he himself uses this name in his Epistles. 

The occasion of its employment in Acts is sufficiently dra- 
matic. Inspired by the spirit when opposed by the false 
prophet Paul, no longer Saul, takes the first place and re- 
tains it till the end of the book. He concludes his solernn 
rebuke with the words, “And behold, the hand of the Lord 
is upon thee; and thou shalt be blind, and not see the sun for a 
time. And immediately there fell on him a mist and dark- 
ness and he went around looking for some one to guide him” 
(Acts xiii, 11-12). This is the first miracle by Paul on record. 
It was such a one as a prophet was expected to inflict. There 
are several Jewish stories of the encounters between orthodox 
and Christian rabbis in which signs and wonders play a part. 
It is of little use trying to rationalize or explain them away. 
They were looked for, and they occurred. The name of 
Jesus, and, not much later the Sign of the Cross, had super- 


90 


DARIN AD AS i AN Deas AU: 


natural power and Christians were undoubtedly strengthened 
in their faith by the belief that their Lord was more power- 
ful than the demons which their adversaries invoked against 
Him. At the sign wrought upon the enemy of Jesus, the Pro- 
consul became a believer, “being amazed at the doctrine of 
the Lord.” Whether this statement can be taken literally or 
not is an open question. Sir William Ramsay thinks that 
there is antiquarian evidence to show that there were possibly 
descendants of his in Asia Minor who later professed the 
Christian name; Renan considers that Paul was misled as to 
the “conversion” of the Proconsul because he gave audience 
to what must have seemed to him as a man of the world the 
preaching of a somewhat interesting enthusiast. Nothing is 
told us of the subsequent history of so eminent a convert, 
and it is, to say the least, strange that he plays no part in 
Christian legend, especially when there exists an alleged cor- 
respondence between the Apostle and the contemporary states- 
man and philosopher Seneca. Nor is there any mention of 
the baptism of Sergius Paulus in Acts or elsewhere. 

It is worthy of notice that nothing is said in Acts of any 
converts in this mission to Cyprus being baptized or of a 
church being founded in the island. This seems to confirm 
the theory that the object of the preachers was to proclaim 
the Messiahship of Jesus to Jews, only and not to persuade 
them to form any Christian communities. The time had not 
come to invite the Jews to change their religion in any sense. 
All they were asked to do is to believe that God had raised 
up Jesus as His Messiah and the Saviour of the nation, and 
to look for His speedy return in glory to restore the redeemed 
of Israel. It was probably not till after the astonishing suc- 
cess of Paul and Barnabas among the Gentiles of Asia Minor 
that they set themselves to establish churches. Therefore, 
it seems that the “conversion” of Sergius Paulus was no 
more than that he believed the news that God had sent a 
Deliverer into the world and confirmed the fact by raising 
Him from the dead. But any view of the incident must 


OI 


SA DN ayy PRASURE 


be purely based upon conjecture. All that can be confidently 
afirmed is that after meeting Sergius Paulus, the Apostle 
Paul appears in the light of the unquestionable leader of the 
expedition. The narrative of Acts brings this forward promi- 
nently, “Now when they had put to sea from Paphos, Paul’s 
company (those about Paul) came to Perga in Pamphylia” 
(Acts xiii. 13). From this time Barnabas plays an entirely 
secondary réle. That he, the senior, permitted this, is not 
only a proof of his recognition of the spiritual power and 
fitness to command of the colleague he himself had brought 
into prominence, but of his singularly amiable disposition. 

But if Barnabas was too high-minded to show resentment, 
it was probably not so with his young kinsman John Mark, 
who may have been more important in the mission than the 
word “minister” would appear to imply. At any rate, di- 
rectly Paul became the leader, Mark withdrew and sailed 
back to Jerusalem. 

Why he did so we are not informed. It has been suggested 
that he shrank from the hardships of a journey through a wild 
country, notoriously infested by robbers. Or that he may 
have felt that the expedition as designed at Antioch was 
restricted to Cyprus and that he was under no obligation to 
go any further. It is possible also that, as a native of Jeru- 
salem, and a member of the apostolic circle, he hesitated to 
embark on an enterprise not sanctioned by the Mother 
Church. But it is no easy thing to judge the motives even 
of one of our personal friends, when he decides on some 
course of action, especially if we disapprove; and it is im- 
possible, if not unprofitable to do this when both the person 
and the attendant circumstances are so far removed from our 
ken. All we can be tolerably sure of is that later the retire- 
ment of Mark led to complications between Paul and Barna- 
bas, when the ardent spirit of Paul pressed him onward to 
ever-widening spheres of missionary enterprise (Acts xv. 36- 
39). But when Paul, Barnabas, and Mark, reached the main- 
Jand at Perga in Pamphylia, and Mark had gone home, the 


92 


Baa Re NEAT B Ao AGN De SAUL 


two others determined to proceed inland and to carry the 
Gospel into districts possibly entirely unknown to both of 
them. It is at this point that the wonderful labours of Paul 
really commence with all their tremendous consequences to 
the Christian religion and to the whole subsequent history of 
mankind. 


GASP cB Reva 
PAUL APPROACHES THE GENTILES 


Havine for some unknown reason been abandoned by their 
younger colleague John Mark, Paul and Barnabas embarked 
on an enterprise more perilous than the preaching to the 
Jews in Cyprus where Barnabas at least was well known. 
Apparently they did nothing in Perga but proceeded inland 
to a city called Antioch of Pisidia or Pisidian Antioch.t | The 
narrative in Acts is disappointingly brief. All we have to 
go upon are these words, “And they passing through from 
Perga came to Antioch the Pisidian, and going into the syn- 
agogue on the Sabbath they sat down” (Acts xiii. 14). Much 
has been written about the country, the journey from Perga 
and the history and site of this Antioch, but the real problem 
is why on this occasion Paul and Barnabas, instead of visiting 
the cities around Perga, struck into the heart of Asia Minor 
and travelled through a most difficult country by mountainous 
roads, frequented by robber bands, made additionally perilous 
by the flooding of the rivers, and traversed a little populated 
country. It was not apparently the custom of St. Paul to 
leave the beaten track of commerce, unless later he made a 
journey similar to this into the districts of Galatia proper. 
There must have been some special reason unknown to us 
why he decided to go to so remote a place as this Antioch. 
Perhaps there was some connection with the Jews there which 

1 The common reading is Antioch of Pisidia. Nevertheless the best manuscripts 
have “Antioch the Pisidian.” Antioch was not in Pisidia (Ramsay Church in 
The Roman Empire, p. 25). Here it is well to remind the reader that in Acts 
sometimes the districts of Asia Minor are called after the old nationalities, at 


others are Roman Provinces, Pisidia, Lycaonia, etc., are districts; Galatia, Asia, 
etc., provinces. 


94 


PaO le A RRO AC HS eye Ae GaN LEE S 


drew the two Apostles, or Paul or Barnabas had friends in 
the city. At any rate the visit to Antioch was a great crisis 
in the history of Christian missionary work as the sequel will 
show. 

Paul and Barnabas entered the synagogue and seated them- 
selves among the congregation and it is noteworthy that here 
and in Luke iv. 16-19 we have perhaps the earliest account of 
a Jewish service. In both places the address was given after 
the reading of the Scriptures, and at Antioch it is expressly said 
that Paul and Barnabas were invited to address the people, 
“After the reading of the law and the prophets.” It was evi- 
dently a mixed assembly consisting of Jews and Gentiles inter- 
ested in the worship of Israel and addressing their prayers as 
Cornelius did (Acts x. 2) to its God. It may be, as has been 
suggested, that Paul or Barnabas had friends in Antioch, or 
that their reputation as preachers had preceded them; anyhow, 
the rulers of the synagogue called upon them to give a word 
of exhortation. Thereupon Paul stood up and with a charac- 
teristic motion of the hand made the following address. 

We cannot have a verbatim report of what Paul said in 
the twenty-seven verses (Acts xii. 15-41) which contain his 
sermon. It must be a summary, or possibly a free composition, 
on the part of the writer. But whatever the origin of the 
speeches in Acts may be they are always constructed with skill, 
and appropriate to the occasion. Justice, moreover, is done 
to the versatility to the Apostle here and elsewhere; for what 
he said at Antioch is as well adapted to a synagogue as his 
words are at Athens to an educated Greek audience: His 
address here is quite different from the words put into the 
mouth of St. Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii.), and to 
a certain extent resembles the defence of Stephen before the 
Sanhedrin at Jerusalem. It deserves particular attention as a 
specimen of the argument a Christian preacher presented to 
the Jews. 

In one respect this discourse resembles that of Stephen, in 
being constructed on the model of those Psalms which recount 
the special mercies of God to His People. 


95 


SALLIN: De E RA gale 


“Year me ye men of Israel and ye who reverence its 
God. The God of this people Israel chose our fathers, 
and raised up (exalted) the people as they abode in the 
land of Egypt and with his arm raised up he led them 
out of it; and he bore with them (or carried them) * 
forty years in the wilderness, and when he had destroyed 
seven nations in the land of Canaan he gave them their 
Jand for about four hundred and fifty years. After that 
he gave them judges till the prophet Samuel. Then 
they asked for a king, and for forty years he gave them 
Saul the son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin. And 
after he had removed him he raised up David to be the 
king, to whom he gave testimony and said I have found 
David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, 


who shall fulfil all my will” (Acts xii. 16-22). 


It seems to have been customary to preface a discourse by 
reciting God’s mercies to Israel; for we find the same in the 
defence of Stephen and in the recitals of the acts of faith 
in old time in the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews. Special stress was laid on the early history recorded 
in the Law, because that was the real Bible of Israel. Prob- 
ably in a fully reported sermon this section would have been 
much longer; here it is necessarily condensed, but the way 
the mention of David is arrived at cannot fail to remind us 
of the Seventy-Ninth Psalm. The importance of David is 
that besides being the ancestor of the expected Messiah, he had 
foretold His coming. The proclamation of Jesus as the 
Messiah is then made: 


“Of this man’s seed God, according to promise, has 
brought to Israel a saviour, even Jesus, John having pro- 
claimed before his coming a baptism of repentance to the 


2 The readings differ both in Acts and in the Septuagint, of Deut. i. 31. The 
Hebrew is “carried them”; the Greek for “carried” or “suffered their manners” 
varies only by a single letter. 

96 


Pra et PR) ALOE iS nie) GEN CEE § 


people of Israel. And while John was fulfilling his 
course he was wont to say, Whom think ye that I am? 
I am not he, but, lo, there cometh after me one whose 
shoelace I am unworthy to loose. Brethren, of the race 
of Abraham, and you who reverence (his) God, to you is 
sent this word of salvation” (Acts xiii. 23-26). 


It is here to be observed that though the death and resur- 
rection of Jesus is assumed to be unknown, even at Pisidian 
Antioch, the Baptist was a familiar figure. The great im- 
portance given to John in Acts is hard to account for unless 
his appearance had produced more stir in the Jewish world 
than did that of Jesus. It is remarkable, however, that his 
name never occurs in a Pauline or any other Epistle in the 
New Testament, nor even in the Apocalypse. The use of the 
word “course,” though found in the Septuagint, may indicate 
that the reporter of his speech was acquainted with his fond- 
ness for metaphors taken from the Greek games.° 


Paul goes on to speak of the death of Jesus: 


“For those who dwell in Jerusalem and their rulers, 
because they did not know this man (Jesus), nor the 
meaning of the prophets who are read every Sabbath 
have fulfilled (the prophecies) by condemning him. 
And though they found no pretext for his death, they 
requested Pilate that he might be killed. And when they 
had accomplished all that had been written about him 
they took him down from the cross and placed him in 
a tomb. But God raised him from the dead. And he 
appeared for many days to those who had come up from 
Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses to the 
Beoplewe (Acts Xi 27-2'8) 


3It has been pointed out to me that this metaphor is by no means exclusively 
Pauline and that the words “I have finished my course” (II Tim. iv. 7) occurs 
in a doubtful epistle. Still I remain convinced that there is an attempt to give 
a Pauline colouring to the speech. 


97 


SAM TIN Dit Pata: Ly 


The general purpose of the argument is that of Peter’s 
speech to Cornelius and his friends; but it appears to be utterly 
unlike what Paul himself would aes said. It is not necessary 
to dwell on the fact that later he connects the death on the 
cross with a new life of freedom from the Law rather than 
with the fulfilment of prophecy; the important point is that 
the Apostle’s own peculiar attitude to the Resurrection is that 
he himself has seen the Lord Jesus. In addition to this the 
whole argument is unsuitable. ~ It is virtually telling a Pisidian 
congregation that if they doubted his statement they could go 
to Palestine and investigate the matter among the eye-witness- 
es of the risen Jesus, whereas we know that Paul considered 
himself to have been in close communication with the Master. 
This section must therefore belong to apostolic preaching in or 
near Jerusalem and cannot have been part of any synagogue 
address by St. Paul ina distant province. The conclusion is the 
special message to Israel: 


“And now we tell you good news, that God has ful- 
filled his promise made to your fathers to us their children 
by raising Jesus from the dead, according to what stands 
written in the second Psalm 

‘Thou art my son 

This day have I begotten thee’ 

But that he raised him from the dead, destined never to 
suffer corruption, he hath said 

‘I will give you the holy things of David, which are 
assured.? And elsewhere he says: 

‘Thou shalt not give thy Holy One to see corruption.’ 
Now David served the will of God in his own generation 
and fell asleep, and was laid with his fathers, and saw cor- 
ruption. But he whom God raised up saw no corruption 
(Acts xiii. 32-37). 

Let this be known to you my brethren, that through 
this man forgiveness of sins is announced to you, and that 
from all things from which you could not obtain acquittal 


98 


Poa ROA CM sa sere. GEN DLE ES 


(be justified) by the Law of Moses every one who be- 
lieves in this man obtains it. 

Beware therefore that there come not upon you what 
the prophets said 

‘Look to it, ye scorners, be amazed and disappear! For 
I am doing a deed in your days, 

A deed you will not believe though one declared it 
plainly to yow ” (Acts xiii. 32-41). 


This is the same pronouncement as that found in Peter’s 
speech on the day of Pentecost, namely that Jesus has been 
raised from the dead to a life which can never know decay 
(Acts ii. 29-36). 

It has been necessary to dwell at some length on this sermon 
because of the extraordinary effect:it produced. And here it is 
well to notice how consistent the book of Acts is in maintaining 
that it was not the preaching of Jesus as the Christ, nor even 
of His resurrection which offended the Jews. The whole con- 
gregation is represented as charmed by the address. Rulers 
and all seem to have been agreed that Paul must preach again. 
An eager crowd of Jews and proselytes followed him and 
Barnabas, who encouraged them to remain firm in their ac- 
ceptance of God’s gracious message. The account says nothing 
of any Gentiles being converted, or even as yet becoming 
interested in the message of the Apostles. 

But evidently little else was talked of during the ensuing 
week. The Greeks themselves were as keen as the members 
of the synagogue to know about this wonderful Jewish 
preacher’s message. On the next sabbath “Almost all the city 
assembled to hear the word of God.” ‘This, as the sequel 
shows, was as great a surprise to Paul and Barnabas as it was 
to the Jews. Except for the baptism of the centurion Cor- 
nelius, the doubtful reading of Hellenas (Greeks) or Hel- 
lenists in Acts xi. 20, and the believing of Sergius Paulus who 
had been under the influence of Elymas Bar-Jesus, and there- 
fore knew something of Judaism as did Cornelius, nothing has 
been said of Gentile converts. But at Pisidian Antioch the 


99 


3 AUN DeePRAUE 


missionaries of Christ discovered that the Gentiles were as 
eager to learn about Jesus as the Jews. 

What follows, the last verses of the thirteenth chapter, of 
Acts, is of the utmost importance for it marks the real begin- 
ning of Gentile Christianity, that is of the Christian religion 
as we know it. 

The Jews of Pisidian Antioch, seeing how attractive the 
preaching of Jesus was to the Gentiles, were filled with fury 
and spoke blasphemously of what Paul was saying. At this 
Paul and Barnabas took an open and definite stand. 


“It was necessary that the word of God should be 
spoken first to you but since you are thrusting it from 
you, and do not judge yourselves to be worthy of ever- 
lasting life, behold we are turning to the Gentiles. For 
the Lord has given us this command. 

I have set thee a light of the Gentiles 
That thou mightest be for salvation unto the remotest 
part of the world” (Acts xiii. 46-47). 


This meant that Paul and Barnabas had resolved upon setting 
up of a church for the Gentiles, if the Jews refused the mes- 
sage of the Gospel. It is here that the career of St. Paul 
really commences; and even his genius can hardly have appre- 
ciated the tremendous consequences of his action. For it 
meant the inauguration of a policy to create churches separate 
from Judaism, destined to produce a Gentile Christianity 
which ultimately spread throughout the world and entirely 
supplanted the original preaching of the Messiahship of Jesus 
as an exclusively Jewish belief. The Jews and even the Jewish 
believers in Jesus realized the danger, hence the bitterness 
with which they pursued Paul to the end of his life. 

It appears that the missionaries stayed a considerable time 
in Pisidian Antioch, for “the word of the Lord was being 
spread abroad through the whole district” (Acts xii. 49). 
The Jews, powerless to prevent what was being accomplished 
by force, had recourse to intrigue. Women had much influ- 

IOO 


Peon eb COACH Esai he GENT TLE § 


ence in Asia Minor, and many had been attracted by Judaism, 
which was accomplishing a great work of proselytizing in the 
households of rich and respected ladies. Some of these were 
persuaded to excite the magistrates against Paul and Barnabas. 
Persecution was the result and the Apostles were driven out 
as disturbers of the peace. In obedience to the command of 
Jesus they shook off the dust from their feet and went to 
Iconium leaving behind them a group of enthusiastic disciples. 

The condition of Asia Minor was not unfavourable to the 
propagation of a new religion. Despite the prevalence of 
brigandage, the people were well contented with the Roman 
government, and often keenly alive to the benefits its well- 
ordered despotism had brought to their country.* It was 
there that the worship of the genius of Rome and Cesar was 
inaugurated, and organized on lines which remind us of the 
subsequent government of the Church. The people, diverse 
as they were, were extremely susceptible to religious emotions; 
for the peninsula was the home of the chief personal religions 
of the West. The worship of the Great Mother (Cybele) 
came from Galatia to Rome, and the soldiers found in their 
chosen “Lord” Mithras, the worship of the pirates suppressed 
by Pompey in Cilicia. The first stronghold of Gentile Chris- 
tianity was in Asia Minor, which for centuries proved the 
birthplace of the great fathers of the East. 

The rest of the journey of Paul and Barnabas is not only )\ 
marked, as hitherto, by the preaching of Jesus, but by the © 
formal establishment of Christian Churches for Gentile be- 
levers. 

Expelled from Antioch the missionaries left Pisidia and 
entering the Roman province of Galatia arrived at Iconium, 
already a very considerable city and later the capital of the 
first Turkish kingdom in Asia Minor. Little is related of 
what happened there; but it was evidently made a centre for 
the apostolic preaching which had much success with both 


*The “ecclesiastical” organization of the priesthood created for the worship of 
Augustus is well described by Professor Duckworth in Beginnings, vol. i, pp. 
199-216. 


IOI 


SUATLIN dive? tae 


Jews and Gentiles. It is recorded that Paul and Barnabas 
wrought many miracles in the district, nothing having been 
said previously of any wonders except the blinding of Elymas 
Bar-Jesus in Cyprus. The mention of the “Signs and won- 
ders” (Acts xiv. 3) is in itself a proof that the mission was 
successful, and it may here be remarked that, whilst there is 
a singular absence of miraculous stories about St. Paul in 
Acts, there can be no doubt that whenever a great religious 
teacher appeared miracles were expected of him and usually 
happened. It is no exaggeration that such things did not help 
the propagation of a new faith as much as we might expect; 
and it was perfectly natural that, when Paul and Barnabas 
healed a lame man at Lystra, the very people who had been 
ready to worship them as gods, should be equally eager sub- 
sequently to stone them. 

But if history is silent about Paul at Iconium, legend has 
been busy. One of the most popular tales about him is how 
a damsel named Thecla heard him preach, and actually embar- 
rassed him by her desire to obtain baptism at his hands, 
dressing as a boy in the hope of being allowed to accompany 
the Apostle. Thecla is said to have been exposed to the beasts 
and to have braved martyrdom, but escaped and died at an 
advanced age. But that which is of most interest to us, in the 
midst of the improbabilities of the story, is that it contains a 
possibly authentic description of the appearance of Paul, who 
is described as 


“A short man, bandylegged, healthy looking, with his 
eyebrows meeting each other, inclined to be red-haired, 
of gracious presence.” 


Evidently the work at Iconium was in the main successful and 

caused no little sensation. After a time the city was divided 

into two factions, the partisans of the Faith and their Jewish 

heathen opponents. Paul and Barnabas were in danger of 

their lives and were compelled to make their escape to the 

lesser cities of Lycaonia where they carried on their mis- 
102 


Pee ok eon sOLAIGY EH Wy Sie A hn Gy EEN D TT, eS 


sionary labours among the heathen, for there is no mention as 
at Pisidian Antioch and Iconium of any preaching in the syna- 
gogue (Acts xiv. 8-20). Paul, however, found a welcome, 
according to the Pastoral Epistles, in one semi-Jewish house- 
hold, that of Lois and her daughter Eunice, who had married 
a heathen and was the mother of Timothy, who later became 
his faithful companion (II Tim. i. 5). 

At Lystra a miracle was wrought the attendant circumstances 
of which are interesting as illustrative of the character of the 
labours of Christian missionaries among the heathen. 

A lame man was listening to Paul as he spoke, and the 
Apostle, gazing at him and realizing that he had the faith 
necessary to be cured, said in a loud voice, “Rise up on thy 
feet.” Thereupon the man leapt up and walked about. Simi- 
lar experiences of what is known as “faith healing” have 
occurred in our own day; but the crowd recognized divine 
power in the event and cried out in Lycaonian, “The gods 
have come down in appearance as men.” ‘The appearance of 
gods or heroes in form was not altogether unexpected in 
heathen antiquity; and in Christian times the saints have been 
similarly manifested. Twice had Zeus (Jupiter) and Hermes 
(Mercury) been supposed to visit Lycaonia. Once in the ter- 
rible tale of Lycaon who entertained them by setting human 
flesh on the table, for which crime he was turned into a wolf 
(Jykos), and again in the beautiful legend of Baucis and 
Philemon, the poor couple, who were the only ones to receive 
the gods with hospitality, and as a reward were allowed to die 
at the same time, that neither should survive to bemoan the loss 
of the other. The healing of the lame man convinced the 
people of Lystra that these gods had again vouchsafed to come 
among them. If the description of St. Paul, mentioned above, 
is correct, it was natural that he should be recognized as 
Hermes or Mercury, the active messenger and spokesman of 
the gods, whilst Barnabas, probably the more dignified in 
apearance, whose superior rank was attested by his silence, 
was acclaimed as Jupiter. A sacrifice was hastily organized 
which the Apostles, ignorant of the meaning of what the popu- 

103 


STARING io alee 


Jace were shouting at Lycaonian, were unable to prevent till all 
was ready. Seeing what was being done the Apostles, for thus 
they are called for the first time, rent their clothes and rushed 
forward with this indignant protest, Barnabas on this occa- 
sion, taking the lead: 


“Gentlemen: What are you doing? We are men as 
you are, and our message of good news is that you should 
turn away from these vanities to serve a God who is 
alive, who made heaven and earth and the sea and all that 
is in them. This God in past times let the nations go 
their own way. But all the same he never left himself 
without witness, by doing you good when he sent rain 
from heaven and fruitful seasons filling your hearts with 
good and gladnesses (i.e., giving you food and causing 
your hearts to rejoice)” (Acts xiv. 15-18). 


The whole account of this affair at Lystra is obviously so more 
vividly described than anything else we have been told con- 
cerning the adventures of Paul and Barnabas that it is per- 
missible to suppose that the writer, at least, here had a better 
source of information, possibly Timothy. The words ad- 
dressed by Barnabas and Paul to the people, when they were 
about to sacrifice, remind us of Paul’s words in the Epistle 
to the Romans that men ought to have recognized God’s power 
and goodness in nature (Rom. i. 20). From what was said 
we may reasonably infer that the heathen inhabitants of Lystra 
were first approached by a proclamation of the supremacy of 
God rather than by the preaching of Jesus which would natu- 
rally follow. 

When the Jews of Pisidian Antioch and Iconium had found 
whither Paul and Barnabas had gone, they followed them to 
Lystra. There they incited the heathen population against 
them and a serious riot ensued. It is said that Paul was 
stoned; but this must mean not with the formality of a Jewish 
stoning, but pelted by the mob, and dragged out of the city 
as though he were dead (Acts xiv. 19). He, however, re- 

104 


mow APPROACHES VLDHE GENTILES 


vived, reéntered Lystra, and was able on the following day 
to start for Derbe. There he and Barnabas carried on a suc- 
cessful work among the people for some time, unmolested by 
their enemies, who apparently supposed that Paul, at any rate, 
was dead. 


105 


SADN TU Pann 





f if Sp Dar 


S WW Spy ‘sy 2) 
Piuo rb) 36, 7 yponuy trip: Sige 


P Pursig 


(91 pv. 


iS 


pe 


VIP PUP PIUOPAPLY 
AGUITAl VIST ul SANOGY] S{P% 


: 4 


(22 


Wy c 


ALU 2 wi] 


G 
LA 9/1971 07 8/5) 


— sasaydye 


we! 


o 
ve, (WL eo 


191-9 
opnayy 


(oz 
9157) 


addy, ad 





106 


GPA Pe b Rav E T 


CON VERS LOW OF VD HE GEN Tel LEs 


THE scantiness of his material is the chief difficulty of the 
historian of St. Paul’s career, and consequently what at first 
sight seems a brief and dull catalogue of events has often to - 
be regarded as of significance. 

Three very matter-of-fact verses at the conclusion of the 
fourteenth chapter of Acts describe one of the major crises in 
the whole history of Christianity. 


“And when they had preached the Gospel in that city 
(Derbe) and had made many disciples, they went back 
to Lystra, and to Iconium and Antioch, establishing the 
souls of the disciples, exhorting them to remain firm in 
the faith and telling them ‘We must enter into God’s 
kingdom by many afflictions. And having appointed 
elders for them in every church, they prayed with fasting 
and committed them to the care of the Lord in whom 
they had believed” (Acts xiv. 21-23). 


It is not easy to account for the decision of the Apostles, not, 
as we might have expected, to go on from Derbe to Tarsus 
through the pass known as the Cilician Gates, and so to the 
Syrian Antioch, but to return eastward through the old scene 
of their labours. It required no small courage to go back to 
places from which they had been expelled and where their 
enemies would naturally have been on the watch for them. 
One reason why this journey could have been possible is, as 
has been suggested in the previous chapter, that the Jews 
107 


SPATE Nee Peas ar, 


who had raised the tumult at Lystra may have believed that 
Paul had been killed, and therefore could give no further 
trouble. The visits to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch must 
necessarily have been paid silently in order not to arouse the 
suspicion of the Jews and therefore it is possible that the 
little communities or churches which Paul and Barnabas 
organized were composed, at least chiefly, of Gentile converts. 
As to what arrangements were made we must be content to 
remain in ignorance. We do not even know whether “laying 
on of hands” means appointment or ordination, nor whether 
the elders corresponded to the rulers of the synagogue or not. 
All we can be sure of is that they were solemnly with prayer 
and fasting (cf. Acts xii. 2) entrusted with their duties. But 
the great step had been taken; and these little bodies of be- 
lievers were the first fruits of the subsequently world-embrac- 
ing Church. 

We have now to consider a most important question, namely, 
Paul’s idea of a Gentile Christian community. But before 
doing so it is necessary to state that there are several problems 
the solution of which must at least later be attempted. First 
there 1s one of chronology— How long did this mission last? 
From hints in Acts about evangelizing whole districts Paul and 
Barnabas must have been some time in the Lycaonian country. 
Next one must ask who were the “Galatians” whom Paul 
evangelized and subsequently wrote? Were they the people 
mentioned in Acts who lived within the limits of the Roman 
province of Galatia or the Gauls who dwelt to the north and 
gave their name to the country. Lastly it is an open ques- 
tion whether this letter to the Galatians is the earliest of the 
Pauline epistles and belongs to this period, or to a later time 
in the Apostle’s career, * 

But these points can wait discussion till after we have investi- 


1The Roman province of Galatia stretched almost across the peninsula of 
Asia Minor, and included the cities visited by Paul and Barnabas. The date of 
the letter as well as its destination is disputed. It is unnecessary here to dis- 
cuss these obscure but interesting problems, when the question is Paul’s relation 
to the Gentile churches. 


108 


CONVERSION OF THE GENTILES 


gated what Paul says in his Epistle to the Galatians and 
elsewhere on the subject of the Gentile members of the Chris- 
tian Church. His opinion on this subject is of supreme im- 
portance, because his theological views come into prominence 
as he discusses it. 

Our first step must be to try and imagine a church purely 
Jewish, the only members of Gentile birth being proselytes 
in the full sense of the term, 7.e., Gentiles who had completely 
identified themselves with Judaism. When a Jew believed in 
Jesus as the Messiah and probably looked for Him to return 
almost immediately, he would not naturally feel that he was 
free of all obligation to observe the Law. On the contrary, 
accepting it as he did as the revelation of God’s will, he would 
be more disposed to obey its precepts. Thus the typic4l primi- 
tive Jewish Christian was James the Just (ze., the righteous 
observer of the Law), the Lord’s brother. ‘Till the day of 
his martyrdom in a time of the most intense religious and 
political excitement, he was held in intense reverence by the 
Jewish people, though, if as many believed, the Epistle which 
bears his name be genuine, his brother was to him “Our Lord 
Jesus the Messiah.”* This devotion to the Law and their 
constant attendance at the Temple accounts for the statement 
in Acts that the disciples had favour with all the people in 
Jerusalem. It also accounts for the number of priests who 
became “obedient to the faith”; and explains St. Peter’s words 
that he had never eaten anything that was “common or un- 
clean” (Acts x. 14). In short the natural consequence of a 
Jew acknowledging Jesus as the Hope of Israel was to make 
him more scrupulous in obeying the Law than he had ever 
been before. 

But, with the success of the mission of Paul and Barnabas, 
the Gentiles were prepared to enter the Church, or new Israel 


2Our complete ignorance of the circumstances under which the Epistle of 
James was written prevents a dogmatic declaration that it could not have 
been the work of the Lord’s brother. The Greek is polished, but at the same 
time the letter is full of reminiscences of the Sermon on the Mount, and of the 
homely illustrations in which Jesus Himself delighted. 


109 


SVANICIN «i (OP AUER 


of God, and the question was on what terms were they to be: 
accepted as the servants of Jesus. Before going further we may 
review the situation as it is described in Acts. At Jerusalem 
a church, or it may be called also a synagogue of believers, 
had been formed, first under the guidance of the Twelve, and 
later under that of James the Lord’s brother. The members 
were strict Jews and were represented by devout priests and 
even by Pharisees. By baptizing Cornelius and his friends, 
Gentiles who worshipped the God of Israel, Peter had ex- 
tended the scope of the Gospel, but nothing farther in that 
direction is related as having been accomplished. The Hel- 
lenistic believers in Jesus had been very active among their 
brethren and had converted many in Damascus, Palestine, 
Samaria, Syria, and Cilicia, and had established a strong centre 
in Antioch the metropolis of the East. Thence the mis- 
sionaries had started for Cyprus and preached Jesus in the 
synagogues throughout the island. When they had done this 
they crossed to Perga in Pamphylia, and pushed boldly across 
the mountains to Antioch in Pisidia. There Paul and Bar- 
nabas found the Jews hostile but the Gentiles enthusiastic, and 
declared that “henceforth they would turn to the Gentiles.” 
This aroused bitter resentment, and the Jews drove them to 
Lystra and Derbe in the wilds of Lycaonia. Wherever they 
went the Gentiles flocked to hear them, and instead of return- 
ing to Syria by the direct route they deliberately, as has been 
indicated, braved the risk of returning to the very cities where 
they had been in constant danger of their lives in order to 
found communities of Gentiles whom they had converted. 
Finally they reached the Syrian Antioch to announce the great 
and unexpected success of their mission, and their convic- 
tion that Christianity could become a Gentile and not an 
exclusively Jewish religion. Bearing this in mind we are able 
to realize the way in which this new conception of the belief 
in Jesus influenced St. Paul and how he became preéminently 
the Apostle of the Gentiles. 

It is interesting to observe that, according to his own account, 

IIo 


CONVERSION OF THE GENTILES 


Paul embarked on the great enterprise of his life after de- 
liberation.* He retired for some time to Arabia. It was three 
years before he went off to Jerusalem, and he then appears 
to have betaken himself to Syria and Cilicia (Gal. i. 16ff.). 
According to Acts, he was living in his native city of Tarsus 
when Barnabas summoned him to Antioch. There he was 
recognized as a Christian “prophet,” that is as a man through 
whom God’s spirit spoke to the Church (Acts xiii. 1). For 
long he was content to play a secondary part under Barnabas. 
At last at Paphos Paul is said to have been “filled with the 
Spirit,” the false prophet was rebuked and the Proconsul con- 
verted by him. From this time his leadership is unquestioned. 

The success of his labours among the Gentiles now confirmed 
Paul’s conviction that he was an instrument in the hands of 
God and that his duty was to act under the guidance of the 
Divine Spirit. His conversion was not in any sense the work 
of man: he owed nothing to any human agency. Jesus had 
appeared to him in person and still was directing his every 
action. He looked to no man for direction but to God alone, 
and he felt himself as truly an Apostle as those who had 
lived with Jesus during His ministry on earth. Paul was con- 
vinced that God had given him a special sphere of work, and 
no mortal should interfere with him so long as God?s Spirit 
was his guide. This helps to account for the fact that Paul 
persistently maintained that he had never learned his inter- 
pretation of the living Jesus from the earlier disciples, and 
owed nothing to them, but all to direct communication with 
the Lord. Yet in Acts he is represented as maintaining 
friendly relation with his predecessors in the Gospel and even 
with James. This is, I think, accounted for if we remember 
the character of the Apostle, who combined with a firm belief 
in his inspiration from God a great delicacy in respect to the 
feelings of others. Thus there was little or no inconsistency 


3 For the complicated questions of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem, see Beginnings, 
vol. ii, p. 153ff. The reader must bear in mind what has been said in Chapter VI 
of this work. 


III 


SAINT PAUL 


in his maintaining his complete independence of the Church 
of Jerusalem, and yet, where principles were not at stake, dis- 
playing a desire to conform to its wishes and assist its members. 
Moreover, so far as he was personally concerned, except that he 
ate in company with his Gentile converts, he appears to have 
felt bound to observe the Law. 

There was evidently a section of Jewish believers in Jesus 
to whom Paul’s teaching was as distasteful as it was to ortho- 
dox Jews. No sooner did he establish a church in Galatia, 
than representatives of this party visited it in order to undo 
his work. ‘They tried to persuade the new converts that, if 
they would really follow Jesus, they must, like the Master, 
observe the Law. It was averred inconsistent to accept Him 
as the Messiah and refuse to conform to the Law of Israel. 
Till they did so, till they accepted circumcision and the obliga- 
tion of observing the Law, they were no better than those 
Gentiles, who professed to worship God without joining the 
nation of Israel. In fact they were like some people who 
whilst professing to admire the Catholic Church and to enjoy 
its services, decline openly to join it. 

Now Paul was convinced that the world at large was invited 
to come freely to Christ’s salvation, not as Jews, but as human 
beings. This he held was the will of God communicated 
directly to him. 

The Galatians having accepted Jesus were much influenced 
by this Judaic teaching which was antagonistic to the whole 
spirit of Paul’s message to them, and he addressed to them a 
letter explaining his position. 


“As an apostle with a direct commission from Jesus 
Carist, I Paul and the brethren who are with me send 
you greeting” (Gal. i. 1-2). 


“Why have you suddenly accepted a different gospel 
from what I preached to you? For this is what you have 
I12 


GONVERSLON OF DHE GEN TIDES 


really done in accepting the injunction to conform to 


Judaism” (Gal. i. 6). 


“My gospel is not a human one, no man taught it me. 
I received it direct by a revelation from God about Jesus 
Christ. The facts of my life prove it. I was a bitter 
persecutor of the church till God revealed his Son in 
me. When I was converted to him, I never so much as 
saw Peter (or Cephas—the readings differ) for three 
years, and then only for a few days. Then I went to 
Syria and Cilicia and for fourteen years the churches of 
Judzea did not so much as see me till I went to Jerusalem 


with Barnabas” (Gal. i. 1 5ff.). 


It is well to repeat that the chronological question need not 
trouble us here, Paul’s object being to show that he could not 
have received his interpretation of Jesus from the original 
disciples. 

The next point to deserve attention is that there was an 
agreement at Jerusalem that Paul was to go among the Gen- 
tiles and Peter among the Jews; after this the two with 
Barnabas repaired to Antioch. To quote the Apostle’s words: 


“But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him 
openly, because he was manifestly in the wrong. For he 
habitually ate with the Gentile believers till some of 
James’ friends arrived. But when they had come he be- 
gan to draw back and hold himself aloof from us, 
because he was afraid of offending the advocates of cir- 
cumcision. And the rest of the Jewish believers showed 
the same lack of frankness, and even Barnabas shared in 
their want of candour. But when I saw that they were 
not walking honestly as the gospel teaches, I said to 
Peter in the presence of them all: How can you, a born 
Jew, force the Gentiles to become Jews, when you your- 
self (by eating with them) are living as a Gentile?” (Gal. 
ii, II-14). 

113 


DUAL DUNG RAS Ui 


This passage throws much light on the attitude of the 
Jewish to the Gentile believers when the Gospel was being car- 
ried outside the pale of Israel. We notice that the great 
question seems to have been whether Christianity could break 
down the barrier, which the Jew had hitherto interposed be- 
tween himself and the Gentile, by refusing to join in a common 
meal. Jesus had been accused of “receiving sinners and eat- 
ing with them” (Luke xv. 2). Peter, when he converted 
Cornelius had to answer the charge made by the stricter Jewish 
brethren that he had eaten with uncircumcised men (Acts 
x1. 3). Eating with Gentiles, or even with lax observers of 
the Law (publicans and sinners) was incompatible with strict 
Judaism; for to do so was to enter into communion with them. 
If, however, the Jewish believers refused to eat with their 
Gentile brethren, they virtually could have no fellowship 
with them, with the inevitable result that in the same place 
there would be two churches, a Jewish and a Gentile, and all 
real unity in Christ would be impossible. It would appear 
that at Antioch the friends of James were ready to consent 
that the Gentiles should be admitted to share in the salvation 
brought by Christ by receiving Baptism, but that they should 
not be allowed to associate with the Jewish believers unless 
they were circumcised and became, as proselytes, members of 
the Israelite nation, and thus alone able to enter into full com- 
munion with the original disciples of the Master. Peter was not 
prepared to go so far as this, but was ready to avoid scandal by a 
temporary compromise, as was Barnabas who had joined the 
Church almost immediately after the Resurrection. But to 
Paul the duty of accepting every baptized Christian as a 
brother, to refuse to eat with whom was to be absolutely untrue 
to the whole spirit of the Gospel, was not only a matter of prin- 
ciple, but, as he firmly believed, had been plainly revealed 
to him by God. Henceforward Jews and Gentiles who 
accepted Christ must form one body, and this inevitably led 
in the end to separation from the synagogue. The arguments 
by which St. Paul sustained and justified his principle are 


114 


CONVERSION OF THE GENTILES 


naturally interesting and important, but of infinitely less value 
than the principle for which he was contending. He has to 
explain how it is that the Law can be so far disregarded as 
to make fellowship between Jew and Gentile possible, and in 
this endeavour he states for what purpose Christ’s coming into 
the world was designed, and in so doing he raises questions 
about the relationship of man to God, which are, and must 
always be, a cause of difficulty to the human mind. 

The end and object of God’s sending His Son was that in 
Him man should be brought into a right relationship with his 
Maker. The entire human race, Jew and Gentile, had gone 
astray in rebellion against God; and the natural infirmity of 
man prevented his return to obedience. Christ alone had made 
this possible by reconciling man to God and thereby enabling 
us to enter into fellowship with the Creator. This is the 
meaning of “justification.” But how could this come about? 
How could God accept sinful man as His son? The obvious 
answer was that a merciful God would receive with love any 
man who did His will as it was revealed in the Law He had 
given him through Moses; and if this were possible there was 
no real necessity for a Christ. As, however, it was not possible 
to keep the whole Law perfectly, owing to the imperfection 
of man’s nature, it was necessary to find as an alternative the 
acknowledgement of Jesus as the Christ by Whom alone we are 
brought to God. This view is stated in the argument follow- 
ing Pauls rebuke to Peter for withdrawing from the 
Gentiles. 


“We who are Jews by birth and for this reason are 
not offenders against God as the Gentiles are, know- 
ing that man is not justified by performing the com- 
mands of the law, seek that we may be justified by faith 
in him, and not by the works of the law. 

“But if we (Jews) in seeking justification in Christ, 
find ourselves, like the Gentiles, to be offenders against 
God, can we say Christ made us sinners? It is only, if 


115 


S.A NAG ae 


I rebuild what I destroyed (i¢., my trust to be saved by 
the law), that I prove myself to be a transgressor. 

“This is, however, in my condition. I through the 
law died to law that I might live to God. I have shared 
in the death of Christ on the cross. What is now alive in 
me is not myself, but Christ living in me. As far as I 
live in the flesh I live in my faith in the Son of God who 
loved me and gave himself for me. I am not making 
nothing of God’s grace: all I say is this: If justification 
comes aed the law, Christ died to no purpose” (Gal. 
il. 15-21). 


Rightly to understand the full meaning of the Apostle it 
would be necessary to compare the above with all he says else- 
where on the subject. Here it appears desirable to confine our- 
selves to his immediate object in writing thus to the Galatians. 

It is to justify the establishment of churches in which Jews 
and Gentiles can unite in Christian brotherhood. This could 
not be possible if the Jews remained apart because of a loyalty 
to the Mosaic Law which prevented them from associating 
(eating with) the uncircumcised. Nor would it improve mat- 
ters to insist that all believers in Jesus should accept circum- 
cision, for then many Gentiles would necessarily be excluded. 
The Church would continue to be an association of Jews and 
proselytes, and the circumcised Gentiles would be liable to 
think little of Jesus in comparison with the Law they were 
called upon to fulfil. 

In combatting this Paul, and we must never forget that he be- 
lieved himself to be directly inspired by God, and realized that 
the Law, which elsewhere he describes as “holy, just and good,” 
could not restore man to fellowship with God. Not so much 
because the precepts were burdensome, but that it was on 
account of human weakness (i.¢., the flesh), powerless to save. 
Only Christ could do this; and Paul’s personal experience had 
taught him that it was solely by identifying himself with the 
death and risen life of his Master that he could really live. 

116 


Reeve ho C)Ni CO) Revigtebe GE NRE D ES 


This is the keynote of the system, which Paul maintains 
through his Epistles in every period of his life. The prac- 
tical outcome of it was that the Christian Church from hence- 
forth consistently maintained the essential unity in Christ of 
all who enter it. It remains for us to inquire how the results 
of this important conviction were secured. 


117 


COVA C Raa ER axe 


THE FORMAL ADMISSION OF THE GENTILES 


THE visits to Jerusalem recorded in the Acts of the Apostles 
and in the letters of St. Paul are a cause of no little perplex- 
ity. As, however, it seems advisable here not to enter into a 
long discussion of the subject, and to abstain from enumerating 
the different theories regarding the apparently contradictory 
statements, it is sufficient here to mention the different occa- 
sions on which Paul went there and to inquire how far the 
material at our disposal contributes to explain the recognition 
of the Gentile Christians by the Mother Church. 

According to Acts Paul visited Jerusalem between his con- 
version and the so-called Council of Jerusalem on the follow- 


ing occasions: 


I. Paul went straight to Jerusalem from Damascus after 
his escape from the Jews and was brought into the assembly 
of the Apostles there by Barnabas. His preaching provoked 
the Hellenists to plot against his life and he had to flee to 


Tarsus (Acts 1x. 26-30). 


II. When the prophet Agabus had predicted a famine, 
contributions to the brethren at Jerusalem were sent from An- 
tioch by the hands of Barnabas and Saul (Acts xi. 28-30).” 


III. After their success in converting the Gentiles, Paul 
and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to discuss the terms on which 
they were to be admitted (Acts xv). 


1 If the correct reading in Acts xii. 25 is to Jerusalem, another visit must be 


assumed. ; 
118 


ABW ISS LON: OF aH ED GEN TILES 
Writing to the Galatians Paul mentions two visits: 


1. Three years after his conversion and visit to Arabia to 
see Cephas; but he was only at Jerusalem fourteen days 


CGali1.)17-18).) 


2. Fourteen years later in company with Barnabas, owing 
to a special revelation from God. On this occasion there was 
evidently a sharp controversy (a) as to whether Titus, a Gen- 
tile (Greek) by birth should or should not be circumcised; 
(b) with the “false brethren” to whom Paul and Barnabas re- 
fused to concede anything, because they grudged the freedom 
of the Gentiles. Finally an agreement was arrived at: Peter was 
to go among the Jews (the “Circumcision”), and Paul among 
the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas were further asked to help 
the poor Christians of Jerusalem, and speaking for himself, 
Paul says “this very thing I was desirous to do” (Gal. ii. rff.). 


Of course the question is how these statements can be recon- 
ciled, and whether the visits to Jerusalem according to Acts 
can be identified with those mentioned in Galatians? In other 
words is the second visit in Galatians identical with the third in 
Acts, or are the accounts so different as to make it impossible 
that the same event is described? Is it not also conceivable 
that the Galatian visit is the same as the second one recorded 
in Acts? These and other points, such as whether Titus was 
circumcised or not, are interesting and have been keenly de- 
bated, but what is important is the significance of the agree- 
ment as it is related in Acts xv, especially as the order of 
events and the determination as to the exact nature of the facts 
can only be based on conjectures which, however ingenious, 
leave us little wiser than we were before. 

Assuming for the moment that Acts xv and Galatians 11 
refer to the same circumstances, we may reasonably maintain 
that if St. Paul’s version is preferable because it is the testi- 
mony of one who took an active part, that in Acts is, though 
later, much less biased. ‘To take but one sentence in each. 


11g 


SEA DN Pea ae 


The opponents of the Apostle “are false brethren unawares 
brought in” etc., whereas in Acts they are described as Phari- 
sees who accepted Jesus or “certain of the sect of the Pharisees 
which believed.” 

Paul and Barnabas were enthusiastically received by the 
Christians of Antioch, who rejoiced at a door of faith being 
opened to Gentiles as well as Jews. But the harmony was soon 
disturbed by the arrival of representatives from the Church at 
Jerusalem who insisted that the converts must be circumcised 
and observe the Law. The controversy disturbed the com- 
munity at Antioch and perhaps at the instigation of the dele- 
gates from Jerusalem it was decided to send a deputation there 
headed by Paul and Barnabas (Acts xv. 2). 

Thus we are brought to the famous Apostolic Council of 
Jerusalem with all its perplexing difficulties, regarding its 
identity with the conference between Paul and the older 
Apostles its decree, and the silence which St. Paul observes 
about it, in those Epistles which deal with the subject of asso- 
clating with the Gentiles. 

But whatever opinion may be held of the account in Acts, 
whether it be a description of an actual conference or not, 
there can be no question that it gives the author’s view of an 
understanding actually arrived at between the parent Church 
of Jerusalem and the newer and more extended Christian 
communities, namely, that the Gentiles should be admitted on 
condition that they were not allowed to offend the perfectly 
legitimate prejudices of Jewish believers. The debate is given 
with much brevity, but at the same time in such a way as 
to leave a lasting impression on the mind of the reader. 

Before the conference met formally, there were evidently 
several preliminary meetings in which Paul and Barnabas ex- 
plained what they had accomplished. The Pharisaic believers 
insisted on the Gentile converts being circumcised, and when 
the Apostles and elders met to come to a final decision there 
was, we are informed, a very warm controversy. But at last 
there was silence and Peter spoke, as one version says, “in the 
spirit.” 

120 


ADMISSION OF THE GENTILES 


It is impossible to read the very condensed account of what 
was said by Peter and James without recognizing the skill 
with which their words are reported or composed. Peter’s 
argument is alike characteristic of this Apostle, and by no 
means what one might have expected Paul to have advanced. 
It also helps to explain the motives which actuated Peter on the 
occasion of the dispute with Paul as related in Galatians. 

Peter reminds his audience that he was the first of the 
apostles to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles; and that God 
proved that there was no distinction between Jew and Gentile 
by giving the gift of the Holy Spirit to uncircumcised con- 
verts. It was by their faith that their hearts were cleansed, 
and not by an outward act of circumcision. It was not, 
therefore, right to impose the yoke (of the Law) upon the 
Gentiles which “neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” 
(Acts xv. 7-10). 

This is not Paul’s view of the Law. To him it was, not 
an intolerable yoke, but something which had no power to save 
fallen humanity, and therefore should not be imposed on the 
Gentiles lest it should come between them and Christ. In 
a word the argument of Peter is one of loving expediency, 
whereas with Paul the non-observance of the Law by the Gen- 
tiles was a matter of principle. The words of Peter evidently 
impressed the disputants and they listened in solemn silence 
to Barnabas and Paul—note the order, for at Jerusalem Bar- 
nabas represented the Christianity of Antioch—as they told 
of the miracles which had attended their success among the 
Gentiles. 

When they had finished, James the Lord’s brother summed 
up the discussion in characteristic fashion. His argument is 
rabbinical. As a strict observer of the Law, he justifies his 
opinion by an appeal to prophecy. 


“Hear me my brethren: Symeon (he calls Peter by 
his Hebrew name) hath declared how God first visited 
the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name. 

121 


SANLIN Po An tis 


And this agrees with the words of the prophets (ie., 
Amos), who foretold that God would restore the fallen 
tent of David, that the rest of men might seek the Lord, 
even all the Gentiles who are called by his name. It 
is the oracle of God who makes this known from of 


old” (Acts xv. 13-18). 


This was well calculated to appeal to such an audience as 
that of the believers in Jerusalem. To them the argument 
from prophecy would be conclusive, and the restoration of the 
house of David, of which James was a member, would appeal 
to the Pharisees present, who, as we know from their Psalms, 
regarded David as the true representative of Israel, rather 
than the priestly caste then in power. The descendant of the 
Great King was to them surely the Messiah who would bring 
the Gentiles under the sovereignty of God. Hence all would 
be ready to accept the decision of James whom he acknowl- 
edged to be of David’s house and lineage. 

The decision of James and the letter in which it is embodied 
appears in two forms in different groups of texts of the New 
Testament, which are here given in parallel columns. 


Text of the Oldest MS. Western Text (so called) 


“Therefore I decide not to which differs materially from 
give needless trouble to the the familiar text of Acts. 
Gentiles who are turning to 
God but to enjoin them to 
keep themselves from the 
pollutions of the idols (ie., 
the idols which pollute men) 
and fornication and_ that 
which is strangled and blood. 
For Moses has from of old 


omit “that which is strangled” 
ada svatter< blood?) ) Seamer 


those who proclaim him in 
the synagogues in every city, 
being read on every Sabbath 
day” (Acts xv. 19-21). 


whatsoever men would not 
wish to be done to themselves, 
do ye not to others.” 


122 


Pola vines LON tO Pee eG END TUES 


In the letter the decision is given thus: 


“For it has seemed good to 
the Holy Spirit and to us to 
lay upon you no _ further 
burthen than these necessary 
ones—to keep yourselves 
from the pollutions of idols, 
and things strangled and for- 
nication and blood from which 
if you guard yourselves you 
will do well. Farewell” 
(Acts xv. 28-29). 


last clause “Keeping your- 
selves from these do well, 
being borne onward by the 
holy spirit.” Farewell. 


The general meaning of the decision is evident. The Gen- 
tile converts may be recognized provided they do not flout 
the susceptibilities of their Jewish brethren. Living, as all 
Gentiles did, under a system which made compliance in some 
sort with the impurities of the popular religion inevitable, 
they must be very careful not to be contaminated by them. 
But the question raised by the variety in the reading is this. 
In the generally accepted version, besides the “pollutions of 
idols” (which occur in both) three things are to be avoided: 
“fornication, things strangled (7.e., animals killed in a way 
prohibited by the Law) and blood,” which is forbidden to be 
eaten in God’s command to Noah, and therefore to all Noah’s 
descendants including the Gentiles. The difficulty here is 
the mixture of a serious moral offence, fornication, with the two 
ritual ones of eating things strangled and tasting blood.’ 

This was felt by the writer of the Western Text, if that be 
a revision, who left out the difficult words “things strangled” 
and added the Golden Rule “to do as we would be done by.” 
The precept is then, not to offend the Jewish believers by vio- 
lating a food law, but a moral one, to avoid idolatry, fornica- 
tion and murder. But under any circumstances the observance 

2A discussion of this difficult decree is to be found in Lake’s Earlier Epistles 
of St. Paul, p. 40. 

123 


StA LN Die Peat 


of the Law prohibiting eating food ceremonially unclean was 
very important in the eyes of the Jews as will be seen when we 
come to realize the difficulties raised in St. Paul’s Epistles. 
At any rate this Council of Jerusalem marks an important 
crisis in the history of the Church. The Gentile Christians 
were formally recognized by the Mother Church and thus far 
the work of Paul and Barnabas was endorsed with its approval. 
The scene now shifts to Antioch, where the leaders of Gen- 
tile Christianity met the delegates from Jerusalem to concert 
further plans for the carrying out of the Apostolic Decree. 
The letter from “James and the brethren” was entrusted to 
two prominent members of the community at Jerusalem, 
Judas, called Barsabbas, and Silas. The letter itself was ad- 
dressed to the brethren in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia and not 
to the churches which Paul and Barnabas had founded, and 
was evidently intended to assure the Jewish Christians in 
those places that future missionary labours could be conducted 
on lines from which any misapprehensions might be impos- 
sible. This may be one reason for Paul never alluding to the 
“decree” in any of the letters referring to the question of 
eating food condemned by law or tradition, It is to be ob- 
served that Judas and Silas, not Paul and Barnabas, were 
entrusted with the letter, as though the Church of Jerusalem 
was resolved that its own representatives should officially sanc- 
tion the work of the two great missionaries to the Gentiles. 
Judas and Silas were evidently very important persons, 
acknowledged as prophets by the Church. From what 1s 
related Judas seems to have represented the stricter party; 
for, having discharged his mission, he returned to Jerusalem. 
Not so Silas, who seems to have been completely won over 
to Paul’s view of the future of the Gospel. This is the first 
conspicuous example of the powerful influence of the Apostle 
over his friends; and it is evident from the too brief statement 
in Acts that in Silas he had gained an enthusiastic colleague, 
who was prepared to surrender all his prejudices as a mem- 
ber of the original community of Jewish believers in order 


124 


ADMISSION OF THE GENTILES 


loyally to range himself with Paul as an evangelist of the 
Gentiles. His name appears in the two Epistles to Thes- 
salonica, each of which bears the superscription of Paul, Sil- 
vanus (7.¢., Silas) and Timothy. Not so Barnabas. Putting 
together what we learn from Galatians with the story in Acts, 
we may, I think, imagine that he was a man beloved for his 
goodness, respected for his liberality, whose courage and devo- 
tion were beyond question but whose temper was conciliatory, 
and unable to carry him forward to the logical outcome of the 
principles arrived at by Paul. He judged the conduct of 
John Mark in leaving the work at Perga more charitably than 
did his colleague and desired to keep him as his companion. 
He agreed with Peter that it was imprudent to offend the 
representatives of the original Church with which he had been 
so intimately acquainted by openly joining the Gentile com- 
munity at Antioch. Paul evidently felt his defection bitterly. 
“Even Barnabas,” he writes to the Galatians, “was carried 
away by their dissimulation,” 7.e., “of those who came from 
James” (Gal. ii. 13). Acts admits that the quarrel about tak- 
ing Mark was a bitter one (Acts xv. 39). But though, so far 
as we know, Paul and Barnabas ceased to work together, 
Paul never apparently lost his esteem for Barnabas, and re- 
garded Mark with affection (I Cor. ix. 6; Col. iv. 10; II Tim. 
iv. I1). It is painful to record the disputes among these 
good men, but the very fact they are recorded, is a proof 
that the story we have is a genuine account of actual events. 
The details may be confused and there may be discrepancies, 
but the fact that Paul and Barnabas worked in complete har- 
mony up to a point and then parted company is too natural 
to have been invented. 

Before taking leave of the gentle Barnabas, it is well to 
mention that a very early Christian document bears his name, 
and appears in one of the ancient Greek manuscripts of the 
Bible as Scripture. Upon the whole the evidence for its being 
the work of Barnabas is as good as that in favour of several 
books of the New Testament whose authorship is questioned. 
It is its marked inferiority to any work accepted as Scripture 

125 


SvA TN. Tis PeACUre 


which led the Church to reject it.” The “Epistle of Barnabas” 
is a moral treatise beginning with a description of the Two 
Ways; one of life, the other of death, and continuing with 
a long argument against Judaism as perverse as it 1s ingenious. 
At an early date the “Epistle to the Hebrews,” one of the 
most beautifully expressed books in New Testament, with its 
doctrine of the human nature and the eternal priesthood of 
Christ, was by some ascribed to Barnabas. 

Peter appears to have influenced Barnabas in his refusal to 
go as far as Paul wished, and he too is lost to sight, at least 
so far as the New Testament is concerned, but for allusions to 
him in the Pauline Epistles. HHenceforward we have to trace 
his career in the tradition of the Church and in the early 
apocryphal writings, though there is no scriptural authority 
to support his connection with the Roman Church. If the 
so-called “First Epistle of Peter” is his, his teaching among 
the Gentiles resembled that of Paul with characteristic differ- 
ences. The fact of his close personal relationship to the Master 
during His earthly career gave Peter much authority among 
Christians and accounts for the honour in which his memory 
was held; but his disappearance from Acts after the Council 
of Jerusalem leaves Paul’s the one commanding figure in the 
history of early Christianity. Apparently John Mark was 
later on good terms with Paul; but it is perhaps allowable 
to suggest that he definitely attached himself to Peter after 
the conferences at Jerusalem and Antioch, and this accounts 
for the tradition that he wrote his Gospel under the guidance 
of St. Peter. 

There remains James, who appears once more in Acts on 
the occasion of Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem, and it was by his 
advice that Paul paid the expenses necessary for the discharge 
of a vow taken by some Jewish Christians (Acts xxi. 20ff.). 
On this occasion he evidently desired to clear Paul from the 
suspicion that he was disloyal to the Law, and there is no 
suggestion that the feeling between the two was other than 

8It is generally agreed that the letter of “Barnabas” is comparatively late and 
cannot be genuine. 

126 


ADMISSION OF THE) GENTILES 


friendly. According to Christian tradition as well as Josephus, 
James was highly honoured by pious Jews in Jerusalem, by 
whom his martyrdom was regarded as a grievous crime. In 
a word, all the chief actors in the story of the Council of 
Jerusalem and what followed immediately afterwards seem 
to have each gone his own way, and yet to have held one 
another in mutual respect. 


“And Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus. But 
Paul chose Silas and went forth being committed to the 
grace of the Lord by the brethren” (Acts xv. 39-40). 


Thus ends the first chapter of the story of the Christian 
activity of St. Paul. From henceforward his position was 
assured and he carried out his work in accordance with his 
own ideas, persuaded that he was doing so under the direct 
guidance of his Master. For some years he had been con- 
tent to take a subordinate position and to defer to those who 
had been before him in Christ. Now he felt free to continue 
the work, the greatness of which he was assured, in his own 
way. He began to gather round him a devoted company of 
friends to assist him in those missionary labours which gave him 
immortal fame. These it will be our duty to relate, and also 
to endeavour to explain the spiritual experiences, amid which 
he developed his doctrine of the dealings of God to man and 
of the place of Jesus Christ in the life of the believer. 


127 


CiH A Rid bak pex! 
PAUL AND SILVANUS AND TIMOTHY 


Sr. Paut’s separation from: Barnabas has been represented 
as an ungenerous act because Barnabas had undoubtedly been 
his first friend, when, after his conversion, Paul tried in vain 
to join himself to the company of the Apostles at Jerusalem. 
To say that Paul showed himself ungrateful to his former 
colleague by choosing other associates is not only to do him 
an injustice, but totally to misapprehend the situation. In 
great enterprises gratitude may become a serious fault. A 
general, a statesman, or any one who is in a place of danger 
and responsibility may be guilty of a positive crime if he com- 
mits an important charge to an unfit person, to whom he 1s 
bound by claims of gratitude. And Paul must have felt that, 
when he embarked on his second missionary journey, he was 
undertaking a work of such far reaching importance that noth- 
ing could be allowed to impede it. Sincerely attached as he 
must have been to Barnabas, he felt he was not the colleague 
with whom he could continue to work.* Moreover, he be- 
lieved that he was acting under the direct guidance of God. 
As he told the Galatians, he had gone to debate with the older 
Apostles at Jerusalem “by revelation.” Later the “spirit of 
Jesus,”’ as will be seen, directed his mission on its journey. 
In choosing Silas as his companion he was doubtless acting 
under the belief that what he did was God’s will and he 
returned to the scene of his former preaching with an evident 
determination to carry his message as widely afield as God 
would permit him. Rightly to understand the story of this 


1 Renan accused Paul of “gross ingratitude’: but he offers much the same 
excuse for him as above (Paul, Chapter V). 


128 


Pete AN Da Sb VAN Use aN Dol PM’ Ort Ary 


adventurous mission as told in Acts, it 1s necessary to go over 
it as briefly related in nine verses in which something has to 
be supplied in order to appreciate the fact that much is implied 
in what a casual reader might pronounce only a dry record 
of events. 

Paul, having chosen Silas as his companion, left Antioch to 
visit the Churches of Syria (Acts xv. 40-41) probably those 
to which he and Barnabas had announced the conversion of 
the Gentiles (Acts xv. 3). Then the two entered Cilicia, and 
possibly went to Paul’s native Tarsus. Thence they came 
into the Roman province of Galatia, which included the district 
of Lycaonia where they had met with so much success in the 
past. At Lystra Paul chose a third companion, a young Gen- 
tile named Timothy, whose mother was a devout Jewess. In 
order not to give needless offence to the Jewish converts by 
selecting a Greek to assist in preaching the Gospel, Paul 
took what seems, in view of some of his utterances, the strange 
step of circumcising Timothy, thus making him in the fullest 
sense a Jew bound to obey the Law. On their journey the 
preachers are said to have promulgated the decree made at 
Jerusalem by the Apostles and elders. Thus far the mission 
was a success, and the churches increased in number daily 
(Acts xvi. 4-5). 

But then a change came. Paul and his friends passed 
through what was called the Phrygian Galatian country, were 
forbidden by the Spirit to enter the Roman province of Asia, 
travelled in apparent silence as to their message through the 
northern part known as Mysia and tried to visit the great 
province of Bithynia on the coast of the Black Sea, but were 
not allowed to do so by the Spirit of Jesus. Thus they had 
no alternative but go to the northwest coast of the peninsula of 
Asia Minor to Troas where had stood the famous city of 
Troy (Acts xvi. 6-10). 

In parting with Barnabas Paul had determined to carry on 
his mission on independent lines. It may be presumed that 
the decree of the Church of Jerusalem could be interpreted 
as allowing the Gentiles to be baptized without accepting cir- 

129 


SAIN LOL 


cumcision, whilst encouraging those who desired to enter com- 
pletely into the nation of Israel to do so. In other words a 
man might be a Gentile Christian, but the better way for 
him was also to accept Judaism. It might certainly be argued 
that it would be wiser to break altogether with his old associa- 
tions by becoming a Jew, and thus be safeguarded against all 
inducements to relapse into heathenism. This at the time 
was probably the view of Peter, and even of Barnabas. 

But Paul was of a different opinion. He did not desire the 
Jewish believers to emancipate themselves from the Law, 
and he himself observed it all his life. He never renounced 
his ancestral obligations in order to become the head of the 
new sect, but he considered that, when the Gentiles were 
free to enter the Church as such, they ought not to become 
Jews, because by so doing they might cease to regard Christ 
as the only Saviour, and regard the Mosaic Law as powerful 
as a means of deliverance from sin as the Lord Himself. This 
as will hereafter be shown was the principle on which he 
carried on his work, and his reasons for adopting this course 
demand careful attention. 

Was he then inconsistent in circumcising Timothy the son 
of a Gentile father? Possibly at a later time he would not 
have done so, but under the circumstances he may have felt 
that he would have ruined all prospects of success among the 
Jews had he taken a Gentile as his assistant. At any rate, 
the narrative implies that his success in the churches he had 
thus founded was considerable. But on leaving the scene of. 
his former labours, Paul, Silas and Timothy must have met 
with furious opposition, and wherever they went they were 
forbidden by God or by “the spirit of Jesus”? (Acts xvi. 7) 
from preaching the Word. 

The words of Acts must not be taken as the expression of 
conventional piety, but must be interpreted as the actual 
spiritual experiences of Paul and Silas, who believed that 
they were under the direct inspiration of God, without 
Whose aid they could undertake no work of evangelization. 
Still, this does not mean that there were no outward indica- 

130 


PAUL AND SILVANUS AND TIMOTHY 


tions that preaching in Asia Minor was impracticable. As the 
peculiar nature of their mission to the Gentiles became known, 
the news spread from city to city like wild fire. It was the 
same whichever way they turned. The Jewish communities 
Were up in arms against them, and even in far-off Bithynia 
they could not obtain a hearing. This is the more remark- 
able because the peninsula later became the great stronghold 
of early Christianity, and most of the important apostolic 
and sub-apostolic characters are connected with it. St. John 
is associated with Ephesus, St. Philip with Hlierapolis, the 
book of Revelation is addressed to the seven churches of Asia, 
St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, writes four of his letters to 
the Christian Churches of that province—Bithynia is one of 
the first places where a persecution of the Christians has left 
a definite record in the correspondence of Pliny the Younger. 
Nor must it be forgotten that the First Epistle of St. Peter, one 
of the most widely accepted early documents of the primitive 
age, is addressed to the different provinces of Asia Minor. 

But the name of Paul, whether in genuine documents or in 
legend—except in the story of Thecla at Iconium above men- 
tioned—hardly ever occurs in connection with the early 
Churches of Asia Minor, if we except Ephesus. True, he sent 
a letter to the Colossians and ordered it to be read at Laodi- 
cea; but he implies that they had never seen him (Col. ii. 1). 
It seems, therefore, that even when he lived and laboured at 
Ephesus on the coast, and even when he travelled through the 
Asian provinces, Paul was never able to accomplish any suc- 
cessful missionary work even amid the scenes of his early 
triumphs. Why he was so effectually kept out of Asia Minor 
is a question which needs consideration. 

I believe the clue is found in the Epistle to the Galatians, 
Who these Galatians were and when Paul wrote to them is 
one of the most debatable points in the history of the Early 
Church. 

In the third century s.c. a northern tribe of Galati or 
Gauls, the name is identical, invaded Asia Minor and conquered 
a large district in the interior: later they had been subdued 


131 


SAINT PAUL 


by the Romans, and at this time were confined within a dis- 
trict the three chief towns of which were Ancyra, Pessinus and 
Tavium. In some respects they resembled the ancient in- 
‘habitants of the Highlands of Scotland, especially in their 
manner of fighting. Strabo says they fought “naked” with 
long swords; and it was customary for the Highlanders down 
to the Eighteenth Century to throw aside their plaids when 
they charged, and to rush defenceless upon the foe, trusting 
to their activity and formidable swords. Like the High- 
landers, the Galatians were divided into clans at constant war 
with one another and their tribal rivalry was often greater 
than their national patriotism. 

After allowing the Galatians to be ruled by native kings 
under Roman control, the imperial government created a great 
province of Galatia in the centre of Asia Minor, including 
various races, the real Galatians, Phrygians, Lycaonians and 
others. The Galatians to whom the Epistle is addressed may 
either have been the inhabitants of Lystra, Derbe, and Ico- 
nium, whom Paul and Barnabas had evangelized—this is the 
South Galatian theory—or the genuine Galatians who lived 
in the North. Either, therefore, St. Paul wrote to his older 
converts, whom, as living in the province, he might with pro- 
priety call Galatians, or he made an unrecorded journey into a 
northern district, and had been warmly welcomed by the en- 
thusiastic but proverbially fickle Gauls; and as he and Barna- 
bas had fled from persecution from Iconium to Lystra and 
Derbe and the wilds of Lycaonia, so, when he was accom- 
panied by Silas, the mission may have been driven into the 
country of the Galatians proper.” 

All these theories are problematical; what happened is more 
certain. The Jews, whether accepting Christ or not, united 
in opposition to Paul throughout Asia Minor, which can be 
accounted for by the fact that there was as yet no hostility 
in the belief in Jesus as the Messiah. The Jews of this age 


2The South Galatian theory is now generally accepted; but, in view of the 
difficulties Paul and Silas encountered in Asia Minor, I think something may 
be still said for their having gone among the native Galatians. 


132 


Bie AN ee Si LE Ve NUS e AN De STM Ovr HY 


were active propagandists, and if a belief in Jesus brought 
more proselytes they were not likely to quarrel with it. But 
when men like Paul, Silas and Timothy appeared and taught 
that the Gentiles not only need not, but ought not be circum- 
cised, all Jewry was ina ferment. This teaching struck at the 
root of proselytism. It was all very well to say that those 
who believed in Jesus might be allowed to live as non-Jews; 
but when it came to forbidding them altogether to become 
Jews (Gal. v. 2-4), it meant the creation of a Gentile Chris- 
tianity entirely free from the Law. Thus it was certain that 
the Jewish element in the Church would be completely 
swamped by the Gentile, and practically a new Christianity, 
t.e., a belief in Jesus without observance of the law of Moses, 
would come into being. 

Unfortunately, from the very first the zeal which inspired 
the missionary to carry abroad his message has almost always 
caused him to be equally active in denouncing the same mes- 
sage in a different form. The Jewish Christians followed 
Paul wherever he went, and tried to persuade his converts 
to listen to their advice, which practically came to this. “If 
you will be perfect, be circumcised and keep the Law.” ‘They 
vilified his character, pronounced him to be no true Apostle, 
but an interloper who was revolutionizing the religion of Jesus 
without any authority from either the Founder or His original 
disciples (Gal. i. 1; II Cor. x. 1ff.). 

The first part of Epistle to the Galatians is a manifesto 
against this, as has already been indicated, and the remainder 
is St. Paul’s argument against advising the Gentiles to be 
circumcised. Yet, when it is admitted that the main theme is 
the discussion of a question of purely temporary importance, 
the value of his Epistle remains as an assertion of many of 
the most essential principles of the Christian religion, its 
comprehensiveness, its insistence on the true principles of 
service, its disclosure of the spiritual motives which actuated 
the great Apostle of the Gentiles. The reasons given by 
St. Paul why Gentile converts should not submit to cir- 
cumcision, are upon the surface, not only unconvincing, but 


133 


SAIN: DAO ee 


repugnant to most modern men. Yet this did not prevent 
their appealing with much force to that generation. They are 
frequently based on ingenious allegories, in which the stories 
in the Old Testament are made to prove that which the writer 
could never have conceived (e.g., Gal. iv. 21ff). But we 
must always remember that a passage of Scripture was re- 
garded as an oracle, and not usually interpreted from the 
standpoint of its original context; and, if the writer’s words 
could be made to suit a particular occasion, they were regarded 
as prophetic of it. 

That these Scriptural arguments, however, should have 
been addressed to Gentiles may be perplexing, unless we recol- 
lect that the majority of St. Paul’s converts had been accus- 
tomed to frequent the synagogues, where the Scriptures were, 
of course, regularly expounded, and, therefore, such char- 
acters as Hagar, Sarah, and Isaac, would be familiar to most 
of them, as well as most of the passages quoted. In fact, 
when it is borne in mind that the preaching of Jesus as the 
Messiah was based mainly on His fulfilment of the prophecies 
of the Old Testament, it is difficult to imagine any believer 
being completely ignorant of its contents. 

The first two chapters, the Apostle’s personal vindication, 
have already been discussed. Later he addresses himself 
directly to his correspondents in an appeal in which the most 
scathing satire is mingled with the utmost tenderness. It is 
the letter of a strong man deeply moved, written to people 
for whom he has great affection, and whose perversion from 
what he considers the truth of the Gospel he feels has been 
due to unscrupulous men, affecting a pretence of piety. It is 
a document which throws a flood of light on the personal 
character of St. Paul, who, like other saints and even Christ 
Himself, could speak if need be with fiery indignation. The 
letter to the Galatians is unmistakably written by the same 
man as the writer to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, and Ro- 
mans; yet it is unique in tone. As a rule, St. Paul as a 
correspondent is remarkable for his courtesy and considera- 
tion, even where he feels it necessary to express his mind 


134 


PAULIAN Di STL VAN US (AND. TIM OT HY 


in terms of vigorous rebuke. He shows in his letters the 
spirit of what we mean by the word gentleman, a disposition 
never unnecessarily to wound the susceptibility of others. 
Thus it is his habit to begin a letter with some delicate com- 
pliment in the form of a thanksgiving to God for some 
special grace exhibited in the Church which he is addressing. 
But in writing to the Galatians the Apostle refuses to use com- 
pliment: he is too indignant to employ conventional phrases. 

The opening words of our third Chapter are abrupt: “O 
you senseless Galatians, who has bewitched you. You had 
Christ crucified, as it were placarded before your eyes, but 
some evil influence has caused you to see something else. 
Let me ask you one question. Did you receive the spirit by 
doing the works commanded by the Law or by believing 
in Christ? Can you be so senseless as to begin with the Spirit 
and then to want to end with the flesh” (Gal. iti. 1-3). 

This thought is worked out in Galatians by an elaborate 
series of scriptural proofs, the object being to emphasize the 
difference between the world before Christ’s coming, and the 
new state into which those who had accepted Him have 
entered. 

Abraham believed and therefore was accepted by God. It 
was not because he performed a command (mizvah) of the 
Law, but because of his faith that God received him. He 
could not have obtained favour by observing the Law because 
it was not given till centuries later. Therefore, as Abraham 
was justified by his faith, so are all his descendants, among 
whom are the Gentile believers, for God made Abraham a 
father of many nations (Gal. iii. 7-14). 

The acceptance of Abraham and of his offspring was due 
to a divine promise which the Law coming years later could 
not invalidate. The Law did not enable man to receive the 
promise: it was designed as a preparation for its fulfilment 
in Christ, the true descendant of Abraham, through Whom 
all who become the sons of God in the Spirit, are made 
sons of Abraham and sharers in his faith and its reward (Gal. 
lil, 15-22). 


a) 


SATIN eA 


The consequence is that, when a Gentile convert has gained 
all this, it is treason to the Master who placed him in this 
glorious position to go back to the Old Dispensation. In the 
words of the Apostle, this is beginning in the spirit and end- 
ing in the flesh. The spirit is displayed as opposed to the 
tribal narrowness of the Old Dispensation, in the compre- 
hensiveness of Christ, in Whom all have been baptized, Whom 
all have clothed themselves in, so that there is now no place 
for differences between Jew or Greek, slave or freeman, 
male or female because a/J have become one in Christ (Gal. 
ill, 26-29). 

This message Paul was carrying to the Gentiles; and one 
can imagine how distasteful it was not only to Jews but to 
Jewish Christians, who had acknowledged Jesus as the Hebrew 
Messiah, Who was to come with power to deliver the nation 
together with the proselytes, and even those Gentiles who had 
accepted Jesus as their Lord. But when they found Paul and 
his friends preaching a Messiah Who was about to inaugurate, 
here or in a world to come, a sovereignty of God, in which their 
beloved Law would not be the one paramount interest, their 
indignation can easily be accounted for. 

The Epistle to the Galatians is of special interest at this 
point as a revelation of the system and the policy of St. Paul. 
Yet, both words are misnomers. The Apostle was consciously 
neither a philosophic theologian nor a politician. Both his 
wise theology and his policy were the result of a profound 
religious enthusiasm. 

The date of the Epistle to the Galatians as well as its exact 
destination has long been a subject of disputes which can 
never be settled, because the letter gives no definite informa- 
tion as to where or when it was written. 

Everyone, therefore, who studies it has a right to his own 
opinion. At present the most popular view is that it is ad- 
dressed to the southern part of Galatia, and that is the earliest 
letter we have by St. Paul. One reason for an early date is the 
tone of surprise which pervades the letter. In other parts of 
his correspondence the Apostle shows signs of irritation at 


136 


Bate aN DY SLU VIAN U Se 40ND (EMO; 1? HY 


the persistent antagonism of his adversaries; but here he 
seems astonished at the suddenness of the outbreak of hostility 
on the part of Jewish Christians. This would be more easy to 
understand if Paul, driven by sickness or persecution or some 
other unknown cause, had taken refuge among the Galatians 
in the North, had evangelized many, and then discovered 
that even there his adversaries had followed him and tried 
to undo his work. Surprised at such malignity, he might 
well have penned this letter, so pregnant with arguments 
justifying his own attitude, so eloquent with indignation, so 
tender in its appeal to the better feelings of the Galatians. 
But this is no more than an hypothesis. The importance 
of the Epistle at this juncture is that it throws a light on the 
preaching of the Apostle and the reason for its failure in 
Asia Minor. Thus far, the mission had had no success; but 
when the great fail, they look for a new sphere of work. 
At Troas the opportunity came to Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. 
They had a vision: A Man of Macedonia appeared and said, 
“Come over to Macedonia and help us.” If the East re- 


jected Paul, the West called for his help (Gal. xvi. 9-10). 


137 


GEAR IVER xa 
THE GOSPEL ENTERS EUROPE 


Ir Paul, Silas and Timothy had failed in Asia, a rich 
harvest awaited them in Europe. There they met with perse- 
cution, but at the same time gained enthusiastic disciples. They 
were, moreover, joined by some person who, instead of re- 
lating what they did, uses the pronoun we, and consequently 
is generally supposed to have been the author of the Acts of 
the Apostles. On this point it is difficult to speak dogmati- 
cally, but Christian tradition declares that he St. Luke, is the 
author of the Third Gospel, and in future he will be so desig- 
nated; and the sections where the first person plural is used 
will be called the “We Sections.” * 

Luke is called by Paul in his letter to Colosse “the be- 
loved physician” (Col. iv. 14), and he may have accom- 
panied the Apostle and watched over his health, which was 
a cause of anxiety owing to sudden attacks, possibly of epi- 
lepsy. The tradition is that Luke was a native of Antioch, 
and the position of his name where it occurs may imply that 
he was a Gentile by birth. As the writer of the Gospel 
which bears his name, and of the Acts of the Apostles he was 
evidently a man of cultivation; for his Greek is that of an 
educated man, and there is good reason to suppose that he - 
also spoke the Aramaic, current in the Semitic world. There 
is a legend that he was a painter. He seems to have been 
to a certain degree in sympathy with the Judaic representatives 
of Christianity, whilst he evidently had an immense admira- 
tion for the work and character of Paul. In him Gentile 


1In Beginnings, vol. ii pp. 265-348. The case for the tradition that Luke 
was the author of Acts has been presented to the editors’ deeply regretted 
friend C. W. Emmet, and that against by H. Windisch. 


138 


THE GOSPEL ENTERS EUROPE 


Christianity may be beginning to show its future activity, and 
he is the only man who contributed anything to our New 
Testament who is claimed to have been not of Jewish birth. 

The personal narrative of the writer of the “We Sections” 
is marked by the scrupulous care with which he recalls the 
stopping places on the journeys which he records; and he is 
a useful guide, not only to those interested in sacred history, 
but to every student of travel in the Roman Empire. 

His first appearance in Acts is certainly abrupt, “And when 
he (Paul) saw the vision, (ie, of the man of Macedonia) 
immediately we tried to go forth to Macedonia concluding 
that the Lord had called us to preach the Gospel there.” 

So, he continues, we put out to sea from Troas and 
ran before the wind to Samothrace and the next day we 
reached Neapolis from whence we went to Philippi? (Acts 
xvi. 8-12). The missionaries were about to enter upon an 
entirely new sphere of work; and it is well here to notice 
that in one respect the preaching in Macedonia was the most 
remarkable of the successes of St. Paul as an evangelist. His 
converts were poor, but were honourably distinguished for 
their liberality. The Apostle had only to ask, and their 
money was forthcoming. They showed ready hospitality, not 
like the Galatians receiving Paul “as an angel of God” and 
then listening to his traducers; but standing by him in all his 
troubles, serding funds to him when in prison, mindful of 
him apparently to the last. When persecuted in Macedonia 
Paul did not escape alone; but the brethren sent him out of 
harm’s way, and escorted him to a city where he could be 
safe. The devotion Paul was capable of inspiring, and the 
loyalty of the Macedonians, is the most pleasing feature of 
this journey. Philippi is described in Acts as “the first city 
of the district of Macedonia, a colony.” This is a most ob- 
scure sentence and its meaning has been hotly disputed; but 
the last word is plain enough. The city was a Roman colony, 
that is, a settlement of the descendants of old soldiers who 
enjoyed the rights and privileges of Roman citizens, and 
formed a sort of miniature Rome in the midst of a provincial 


139 


SO AuLING ab Asay 


population. The magistrates, like those of the imperial city, 
were attended by lictors, and the inhabitants gloried in the 
fact that they were Romans. Philippi was not a busy com- 
mercial centre, and apparently few Jews were settled there, 
so that the Macedonian mission began in an almost entirely 
Gentile city, for during the first few days the missionaries 
evidently discovered no synagogue. On the Sabbath they 
hoped to find that there might be some Jews praying by the 
river side. Some women had assembled there and Paul began 
to talk with them. Among them was Lydia, a dealer in 
purple from Thyatira in Roman Asia, who was converted and 
baptized “with all her household.” Thereupon she invited 
Paul, Silas, Timothy and Luke to stay with her, and her 
hospitality was offered with such zeal that they were unable 
to refuse it. All we are told of Lydia is that “she wor- 
shipped God” and we may safely infer that the Christian com- 
pany Paul gathered at Philippi was a Gentile Church, perhaps 
the first to be called into being. Some years later, when 
Paul wrote to the Philippians, he addresses their “bishops” 
and “deacons”; and it may be that these Church rulers, bear- 
ing the Greek names, episcopot and diaconoi, replaced the 
Jewish “elders” of churches, based on the organization of the 
synagogue. This theory if not convincing is at least plausible 
for, in the subsequent disturbance at Philippi, the Jews are not 
so much as mentioned. 

Hostility to Paul arose out of one of the most interesting 
miracles recorded in the Bible. Elsewhere a miracle is men- 
tioned as a proof of divine power, here it may be regarded 
almost as an indiscretion on the part of Paul. 

Women have in all ages been susceptible to what are now 
called psychical influences, which, at this and for many ages 
later were attributed to possession by spiritual beings, enabling 
them to divine things concealed from others. At Philippi 
there was a girl who possessed this gift in a remarkable de- 
gree. She was owned by a company who made a profit out 
of her as a soothsayer. It was believed that she was pos- 
sessed by a so-called “Pythian Spirit.” Like these demoniacs 

140 


THE GOSPEL ENTERS EUROPE 


in the Gospels, she recognized the presence of a spiritual 
power more potent than her own. Whenever Paul and his 
company were going to the proseuché (or prayer house) she 
followed them, crying out, “These men are servants of the 
All Highest God and are telling us a way of salvation.” There 
was nothing Jewish in this exclamation; for the word “All 
Highest” (Hypsistos), though found in the Septuagint and 
Luke’s Gospel, was applied to other gods besides the God of 
Israel. 

Now Paul as he appears, not only in Acts but in his own 
letters, was naturally impulsive and irritable, and the girl 
caused him no little vexation by attracting attention by her 
outcries. “Thoroughly annoyed,” he turned on her and ad- 
jured the spirit which possessed her to come forth in the name 
of Jesus Christ with the result that the girl became completely 
normal (Acts xvi. 16-18). 

Of course, knowing nothing of the circumstances, it 1s not 
just to speak with certitude; but, as the story stands as a bare 
recital of events, it does not seem to be intended to edify. 
There is no hint of pity for the girl, no suggestion that Paul 
intended here to protest, as he did later at Ephesus, against 
magic by the casting out of the spirit. The proprietors of 
the girl lost their profits, and she herself became valueless, 
and therefore was possibly neglected or ill-treated. Anyhow, 
the miracle brought much trouble upon the missionaries, as the 
sequel will show. 

The owners raised a tumult, dragged Paul and Silas before 
the city magistrates, and accused them of introducing unlaw- 
ful customs. “These men,” said they, “are causing trouble 
in the city, for as Jews they are proclaiming customs which 
it is unlawful for us to receive or to practise as men of Ro- 
man birth.” This prejudiced the people, proud of their mem- 
bership of the colony, and indignant that Jews should dare 
to presume to make Roman citizens accept their despised re- 
ligion (Acts xvi. 19-22). 

The chief magistrates of Philippi were, as has been re- 
marked, the counterpart of those at Rome, and were called 


I4I 


SAINT PAUL 


pretors. On hearing the complaint against Paul and Silas, 
they never troubled to inquire further, but ordered their 
lictors to strip and beat the accused, after which they com- 
mitted them to prison. The jailor, in accordance with his 
orders, put Paul and Silas in one of the inner cells and se- 
cured them in wooden stocks. In the darkness and discom- 
fort of the night the missionaries sang praises to God and 
the other prisoners listened as they sang. An earthquake 
shook the building; the doors were thrown open and the 
prisoners were at liberty. 

In the pitchy darkness, amid all the confusion and terror, 
Paul retained his presence of mind. He knew that a Roman 
jailor would be likely to kill himself if his prisoners escaped, 
and just as the keeper of the prison was about to fall on his 
own sword, he shouted, “Do yourself no harm, we are all 
here.” Full of gratitude at being thus saved from suicide, 
the jailor called for lights and fell at the feet of Paul and 
Silas, crying, “Sirs, what shall I do to be saved?” He and 
his household were told to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. 
When the family had heard the Gospel they were baptized, 
baptism invariably in Acts following confession of belief. 
Paul and Silas were then taken into the house of the keeper 
of the prison, received every attention and partook of a meal, 
which was probably eucharistic in its character, as its keynote 
was rejoicing (Acts xvi. 23-34). 

The next morning the pretors of Philippi, feeling that 
they had acted precipitately, sent orders for the release of 
Paul and Silas. But Paul was not disposed to do as his 
new convert suggested, and depart in peace. He and Silas 
were Roman citizens, not mere provincials, and the conduct 
of the Philippian magistrates had been indefensible.  Citi- 
zenship of Rome was no honorary distinction. It gave a 
man protection from ignominious punishment, and the right 
of appeal to the Roman people, represented by the Emperor. 
Paul and Silas were privileged persons; and as such could 
travel in greater security than ordinary Jewish missionaries. 
Instead, therefore, of meekly submitting to be dismissed from 

142 


errs OS sh bey biti bakes 1 BUR Cy Pi 


prison Paul took a high hand. “They have beaten us ix 
public without trial and we are Roman citizens, and now 
they want to turn us out privately. No, let them come in per- 
son and escort us out of prison.” The pretors had no alter- 
native but to submit to the indignity of going to the prison 
and apologizing, entreating Paul and Silas to leave the town. 
However, they did not do so till they had assembled the 
brethren in Lydia’s house, and after exhorting them to remain 
steadfast, the two left Philippi (Acts xvi. 35-40). 

The visit to Philippi, considering the brevity of Acts, is 
told at some length, and it was in truth a crisis in the life of 
Paul. It was there that he founded a Gentile Church; and 
his converts were to prove his most loyal friends. Of all 
his letters, his most affectionate one is written to Philippians. 
They seem to have thoroughly deserved his commendations. 

At the risk of repetition we may say that one of the most 
remarkable features of the story of the entire Macedonian 
mission is the way the brethren stood by Paul. At Thessa- 
lonica, and at Bercea they escorted him when threatened by 
persecution, and never left him till they had brought him 
to some place of safety. Wherever he went, therefore, he 
seems to have built up a community of believers or church 
devoted to him personally. It was the same in the matter 
of money. One of the conditions he had made with the 
Church of Jerusalem when it gave him a free hand was 
that he should “remember the poor” (Gal. ii. 10) that is 
the Hebrew Christian community at Jerusalem. Since the 
early days when the infant Church at Jerusalem had tried the 
experiment of having all things in common it had fallen into 
a state of dependence upon newer, and perhaps more vigor- 
-ous, churches, and as all Jews contributed to the upkeep of 
the Temple, so all Christians subscribed to the necessities of 
the poor saints at Jerusalem. Living in the Holy City, con- 
stant in attendance at the Temple and most likely in punctili- 
ous observance of the Law, the Hebrew believers in Jesus 
spent their time in pious idleness awaiting the Master’s com- 
ing. Not only does St. Luke in Acts mention Paul’s efforts 


143 


SAINT PAUL 


to collect this money; but all the Apostle’s letters reveal his 
concern that it should be properly administered. This col- 
lection of money would be of no interest were it not that it 
brought into prominence several sides of the character of 
the Apostle; his scrupulous attention to a duty which cannot 
have been congenial to him, his businesslike and orderly 
mind, his solicitude to avoid the slightest suspicion of care- 
lessness in dealing with other people’s money; and, as will 
be shown presently, his determination that his own converts 
should not use their piety as a pretext for living on the 
charity of others (I Thess. iv. 11). It may also partly ex- 
plain Paul’s resolve never to accept any money from the 
churches which he had founded, with the honourable exception 
of Philippi (Phil. iv. 15), but to maintain himself by manual 
labour. The letters to the Corinthians have reference to this 
contribution to Jerusalem which evidently caused Paul no 
little anxiety and he contrasts the readiness of the Mace- 
donians to contribute with the apparent indifference of the 
richer inhabitants of Corinth (II Cor. ix 3). He speaks 
feelingly of the deep poverty and the rich liberality of his 
first European converts for whom he cherished a genuine 
affection (II Cor. viii. 2). 

From Philippi Paul passed on to Thessalonica, the modern 
Salonica, then as now a commercial city with a large Jewish 
population, and it is characteristic of the writer of the “We 
Section,”? who tells of his adventures in Philippi that though 
he was apparently not in the company, he is careful to men- 
tion two stages on the journey from Philippi, Amphipolis and 
Apollonia, though nothing is recorded as having happened 
at either place. At Thessalonica Paul’s success was first with 
the Jews, and then with the Gentiles. His preaching in the 
synagogue on three Sabbaths resulted in the conversion of 
some Jews, of a great multitude of Greeks who worshipped 
the God of Israel and not a few of the wives of the leading 
men of the city. No wonder the Jews were furious: for the 
mission was poaching on their own special preserve. The 
God-fearing Gentiles were lost as proselytes if they could 


144 


Teeter GO SP EU rh Naas EURO PE 


join the “new Israel,” for that is what the Church professed 
to be without being circumcised; and rich ladies were at this 
time specially susceptible to Jewish influence. 

The Jewish synagogues were too wise to attempt a direct 
attack on Roman citizens like Paul and Silas, but had recourse 
to intrigue. ‘They caused the disorderly element in Thessa- 
lonica to raise a riot and clamour that the missionaries be 
brought before the authorities as responsible for the dis- 
turbance. 

Here again the loyalty of the Macedonian Christians was 
displayed. The mission was lodged in the house of Jason, 
evidently a devoted disciple; but he or others had spirited 
Paul and Silas away, and they were not to be found. The 
enemies of the mission declared that Jason had been harbour- 
ing disturbers of the peace who were guilty of treason against 
the Emperor, declaring that Jesus was the real emperor 
(dasileus in the Greek of the time meant emperor as well 
as king). The city rulers evidently did not believe the charge 
but forced Jason and others to give bail for his guests’? good 
behaviour (Acts xvii. 5-10). Paul and Silas were escorted by 
their followers in Thessalonica to Bercea, where they, strange 
to say, met with a hearty welcome from the synagogue. The 
Jews, more liberal than those of Thessalonica, accepted the 
word readily, and were constantly examining the Scriptures 
to test the truth of Paul’s message. The same classes of 
converts are enumerated in Acts as those at Thessalonica (Acts 
Rvitee D2:) < 

Though the narrative is extremely brief we are able to 
read much between the lines as to what the author implies, 
but for some reason does not choose to tell at length. “But 
when the Jews in Thessalonica knew that in Bercea also the 
word of God was proclaimed they came thither also, stir- 
ring up and disturbing the multitude. But Silas and Timothy 
remained there. And (the brethren) escorting Paul brought 
him to Athens, and having been entrusted with a charge to 
Silas and Timothy to come as soon as possible to him, they 
went away” (Acts xvii. 13-15). 


145 


SALINAS 


The Thessalonian Jews were evidently determined to sup- 
press Paul at any cost; but Silas and Timothy were in little 
or no danger. Again, not only the Jews, but the inhabitants 
of Bercea were incited against him, and he was in peril of 
his life in the face of a determined mob. With the zeal and 
loyalty of all Paul’s Macedonian converts the Bercean Chris- 
tians spared no effort to save him, and not only did they 
take him to the coast but refused to leave him till he was 
safe in Athens. Thus he was driven out of Macedonia as he 
had been from Asia Minor and was forced to begin anew 
in a fresh field, the Roman province of Achaia, better known 
to us as Greece. 

The Macedonian campaign had proved a conspicuous suc- 
cess, and our next task must be to endeavour to form a con- 
ception of the character of one of the earliest of the Pauline 
churches from the two Epistles to the Thessalonians. It is, 
as we have already remarked, possible that Galatians is the 
earliest Epistle, though the general opinion is in favor of 
giving the two Thessalonian letters the precedence. But how- 
ever this may be, these are actually the first to describe the 
state of things in a Christian Church outside Jerusalem, and 
are, therefore, priceless historical documents, because we learn 
from them the condition of a primitive community, and also 
the sort of instruction given by St. Paul. One theory about 
the two letters is, that the first was addressed to the Gentile, 
and the second, to the Jewish disciples of St. Paul. 

The letters are written in the names of Paul, Silvanus and 
Timotheus; but, as in other Epistles, Paul, as the real author, 
at times passes abruptly from the plural to the singular as 
in the following sentence, “We desired to come to you, even J, 
Paul, once or twice, but Satan hindered us” (I Thess. ii. 18). 

We gather from the letters that Paul and his friends had 
a very high opinion of the steadfast loyalty of the Thessa- 
lonians. They were examples to all believers in Macedonia 
and Achaia, and their faith was famed everywhere. They 
had worthily imitated the primitive believers in Jerusalem 
and had suffered at the hands of their own countrymen, as 

146 


THE GOSPEL ENTERS EUROPE 


those in Palestine had at those of the Jews (I Thess. ii. 14-16). 
This is the first mention of persecution of Christians by 
heathen, doubtless, as we have seen, on a charge of disloyalty 
to Rome. It was quite needless to teach them the duty of 
brotherly love, for God had taught them already to love 
one another; and indeed they were doing the same to all 
the brethren in Macedonia (I Thess. iv. 9-10). The pa- 
tience and loyalty which the Thessalonians had shown in perse- 
cution was astonishing; and on the whole we have a most 
pleasing picture of the converts both Gentile and Jew, and 
of the remarkable affection their first teachers had for them. 
Macedonia had evidently proved the most fertile field of 
missionary labour. As to the character of the preaching of 
Paul and his companions an interesting light is thrown by 
these two brief letters. This naturally falls under two head- 
ings (a) moral; and (b) the coming catastrophe to the world, 
and the hope of those who have accepted Jesus Christ as 
Saviour. 

(a) Paul has little but praise for the Gentile believers at 
Thessalonica but he deems it necessary to warn them against 
idolatry by reminding them that they have turned to God 
from the idols “to serve the living and true God” (I Thess. i. 
g). The only other caution is against sexual impurity, and 
it is interesting to notice that these two points are stressed 
in conformity with the decree of the council of the Apostles 
and elders at Jerusalem (Acts xv. 20), the essential moral 
points insisted upon being that the Gentile converts should 
abstain from idolatry and fornication. In his injunctions to 
converts so exemplary as the Gentile Thessalonians, Paul 
shows his anxiety for the ethical behaviour in a community, 
the tendency of which, as will be seen in other letters, was 
to revert to the laxer moral and religious standards to which 
they had been formerly accustomed. 

Another warning occupies much space in both these letters. 
It is against disorderly conduct and indolence. Christian 
liberty must not be made an excuse for insubordination. The 
Gentile Churches must be models of orderly life. The con- 


147 


SAINT PAUL 


verts must be examples to the world, they must shun every 
appearance of riot, and walk honestly before outsiders. In 
view of their hopes of a speedy appearance of the Christ 
they must be calm, and keep their heads. “Let your am- 
bition,” says the letter, “be to be calm, and to mind your 
own business and to work with your own hands” (I Thess. 
iv. 11). Evidently the desire of the missionaries was to 
build up Christian communities, orderly, disciplined and in- 
dustrious, and not to encourage enthusiastic mendicancy. “If 
any man does not work neither shall he eat,” is their stern in- 
junction (II Thess. iii. 10). 

(b) This is the more remarkable when we consider the 
strong eschatological tone of the two letters. The Lord is 
coming soon. ‘We who are alive” shall see Him descend 
from heaven and be caught up to meet Him in the air. They 
who died in Christ shall rise first (I Thess. iv. 13-16). 

In the Second Epistle there is a most difficult and mysterious 
passage. Though the Lord may come at any time, the Thes- 
salonians are warned not to believe any revelation “by a spirit 
or by word, or by a letter” purporting to be by Paul, Silas 
and Timothy. ‘Remember,” says Paul, “what I used to tell 
you, that Christ will not come till a power which restrains is 
taken away. And when this happens a Lawless One (or Man 
of Sin) will appear whom the Lord Jesus will destroy” (II 
Thess. ii. 3-12). No satisfactory explanation of this has ever 
been given, but the Epistle implies that it was an important part 
of the preaching of Paul and his friends at this time. This is in- 
teresting, not only because there is no allusion to such preach- 
ing in Acts, but it is also far from prominent in any later 
Epistle. The amazing thing is that this primitive eschatology, 
preached with so much energy, was able to produce a type 
of Christianity so steadfast and amiable as that displayed by 
the earliest converts in Macedonia. 


148 


GAGA Pai eRe exe) 


TH Ee av SS Ont a Oum ALG HATTA 


Ancient Greece in the time of Paul had become little 
more than a memory. It had long since ceased to be the home 
of intellectual activity and of heroic enterprise. The Greek 
genius was displaying itself anywhere but in Greece, whose 
once populous and active republics had vanished, and the land 
had been long abandoned to the shepherd and the herdsman. 
But two cities, Athens and Corinth, were still of importance 
in the Roman world. 

Athens was a standing monument to the fact that “captive 
Greece had captured Rome.” ‘The sentiment which the very 
sight of the city inspires in us was deeply felt by the edu- 
cated Romans of that period. It being now of no strategic, 
political, nor commercial importance, they could indulge their 
sentiment to the utmost. The city was nominally free and 
its inhabitants specially favoured. The monuments of an- 
tiquity were there in all their glory and were carefully pre- 
served. Rich men spent money freely, then and later, in 
beautifying Athens. Every Roman of eminence went there 
to study philosophy and literature, and it was considered nec- 
essary to a liberal education to have visited this home of 
culture. 

Corinth had been brutally destroyed s. c. 146 by the con- 
sul Mummius, and rebuilt by Cesar. Its Latin name was 
Laus Julia Corinthus. It was, therefore, a new city, and 
its importance was due to its commercial activity. Situated 
on the isthmus connecting Greece with the Peloponnesus, with 
its eastern part of Cenchre and its western Lechzum, it was 
full of travellers and merchants to and from Rome and the 


149 


SIASLIN Wie Pv Aas 


Levant. Consequently, it was in every way suitable as a 
station for a mission to spread a new faith eastward and 
westward. 

It is remarkable how different the converts in the province 
of Achaia were from those in Macedonia. As will appear 
from the ensuing narrative, it would almost seem that the 
Greek spirit, with its intellectual activity, its receptivity and 
its proclivity to party differences was manifested in contrast 
with the steadier qualities of the less gifted but more reliable 
Macedonians. 

When his faithful friends, who had escorted him from 
Bercea to Athens, had departed, Paul was alone waiting for 
the arrival of Silas and Timothy. There are few more try- 
ing situations than being companionless in a great city; even 
its objects of interest often fail to divert the mind from the 
sense of utter solitude amid a crowd of strange faces (I Thess. 
i1. 1). Luke says that the Apostle was much distressed at 
seeing the city so full of idols (Acts xvii. 16), a statement 
which is certainly perplexing. Paul had already travelled 
widely and every city he had visited was full of what to 
him as a Jew were idolatrous objects. He later told the 
Corinthians that, to himself at least, an idol meant nothing 
(I Cor. viti. 4). When he and his companions were at Ephesus 
the City “Scribe” declared that so far from being fanatic 
disturbers of the Worship of Artemis, they had not even 
defamed the goddess (Acts xix. 37). Of course, it is 
possible that Paul, alone and depressed, was vexed at the 
idolatry of the beautiful city of Athens, or St. Luke may 
have made the remark in view of the speech he was about 
to report. Under any circumstances this section presents many 
difficulties, and may possibly be an imaginary description of 
events of which the author of Acts was not an eye-witness, 
and the report of a speech which he could not have heard. 
If so the passage is interesting as illustrating a very early 
Christian attitude towards idolatry. Bearing this in mind 
we may take the few verses which describe Paul’s visit to 
Athens and see whether they have a general appearance of 

150 


THEIMISSELONG TOL ACHALA 


probability, and afterward inquire as to whether the alleged 
speech of the Apostle suits the occasion and can be reasonably 
considered to represent his teaching. 

Paul, abandoned to his own devices at Athens, at first seems 
to have wandered about its streets observing the objects of 
worship which were everywhere conspicuous. He then be- 
took himself to the synagogue where he “disputed” with the 
Jews and the Gentiles who revered the God of Israel. As 
only one synagogue is mentioned, the Jews were evidently 
not numerous and Paul’s preaching encountered, so far as 
this account goes, no opposition. Indeed his doctrine, even 
of the Messiah, seems to have been on the whole acceptable, 
till he touched upon its application to the admission of the 
Gentiles, when prejudice was instantly aroused. 

But Paul also associated with the Greeks in the Agora or 
“forum” of Athens, possibly commanding attention because 
he wore the pallium or cloak of a philosopher. He encoun- 
tered the two rival schools of Epicureans and Stoics, and 
though some designated him by the contemptuous name of a 
“seed picker” yet sufficient interest was felt to invite him as a 
proclaimer of new gods—Jesus and Anastasis (Resurrection) 
—to give a formal explanation of his views. The Areopagus 
to which Paul was conducted is a small hill below the Acro- 
polis, called after Ares, the Roman Mars, where religious 
questions in Greece were determined. But Paul was not 
tried there for introducing foreign gods. It is doubtful 
whether as 2 Roman citizen, or as a Jew professing a religion 
recognized by law, he could be amenable to an Athenian court; 
and the narrative implies that those who heard Paul in the 
Agora extended to him a courteous invitation to explain his 
views. “They took him and led him to Mars hill saying, 
‘May we know what this new teaching you talk about is? 
for you are bringing strange things to our ears, and we want 
to know what they mean.” For,” adds St. Luke, “all the 
Athenians and their visitors devote all their time to hearing 
or telling the last new idea” (Acts xvii. 19-21). 

Paul was then confronted wtih the Greek spirit, intelligent, 

I51 


524 (LING EB Aa tel 


inquisitive, superficial, one on which it was almost impossible 
to make a deep impression. Yet the two systems of philosophy 
mentioned in this chapter, the Epicurean and Stoic, had found 
earnest advocates. 

Epicurus has become a name associated with careless self- 
indulgence. In rabbinical writing Epikurosin is almost 
equivalent to Atheists. In our language an epicure is a fastidi- 
ous glutton. Even in classical writings “epicurean” is used in 
a bad sense. Yet Epicurus (8.c. 342-272) taught that, if 
happiness was the chief end of man, it was to be found, not 
In excess or extravagance, but in the moderate enjoyment of 
the good things of life, and that its secret lay in being con- 
tent with little. He took a severely materialistic view of 
the world, worked out an atomic theory which is strangely 
modern, allowed the existence of gods but denied that they 
troubled themselves about human affairs. Epicureanism had 
found in Rome an advocate of the utmost seriousness in the 
poet Lucretius (zB. c. 50), who writes with a burning indig- 
nation worthy of a Hebrew prophet against human sacrifice, 
and the crimes done in the name of religion. 

Stoicism on the other hand with its stern insistence on duty 
and human responsibility had struck a note responsive to 
Christianity and was doing its part to prepare the world for 
a religion which laid special stress on morality and right 
conduct of life. 

Standing on the Areopagus Paul is reported to have made 
this address in reply to the question of the Athenians: 

“Gentlemen of Athens. I observe that you are very 
scrupulous in your religious observances.” 

The word used is deisidaimonesteros, or fearing the divine. 
It 1s sometimes used in a bad sense and the authorized Eng- 
lish version has “too superstitious.” But the Apostle uses 
it to convey a compliment on the care bestowed on religion 
in Athens (Acts xvii. 21). 

“For as I was walking through your city and observing 
the objects you venerate I found an altar on which had 
been inscribed ‘to an unknown god.’ That which you wor- 

152 


erro Vials. Sh Neds Open Con AT A 


ship, though you know it not, I am declaring for you” 
(Acts xvii. 23). 

This passage not only is in accordance with almost all Chris- 
tian apologetic directed to heathen, but with the teaching of 
Paul, who assumes that the natural impulse of all men in- 
duces them to worship the true God, and that polytheism 
and idolatry are perversions of the instincts of humanity 
(Rom. i. 20-21). It is characteristic of early Christian 
writers to assume that their religion is the primitive religion 
of mankind, which was corrupted by the perversity of man, 
and was restored by Jesus Christ. 

“The God who made the universe and all that is in it, 
he being Lord of Heaven and earth, does not dwell in 
handmade shrines, nor is he served by human hands, as if 
he were in need of anything, because he himself gives to 
all life and breath and everything” (Acts xvii. 24-25). 

Paul here turns to the Epicureans, skilfully showing that in 
one respect they were right in insisting that God had no need 
of human service, but at the same time he declares that man 
is absolutely dependent upon God. The proclamation that 
God does not dwell in shrines made by human hands, made 
under the shadow of the Parthenon, the most exquisite work 
of art, designed for the image of Athena, had a special sig- 
nificance. Having spoken of the benevolence of God as the 
giver of all good, Paul next lays stress on the dignity of man. 

“And he has made of one blood every race of man to 
dwell on all the face of the world having defined their ap- 
pointed seasons and the boundaries of their habitation, that 
they should seek after God if perchance they might grope 
after him and find him, though he is not far from every 
one of them. For him we live and move and are; and as 
some of your prophets said, ‘We are his race’ ” (Acts xvi. 
26-28). 

This teaching of the essential unity of the human family 
is markedly Pauline and is found in the Epistles. It is indeed 
the motive for the insistence of the equality of Jew and Gentile 
before God and for the university of the Gospel of Jesus. Nor 


153 


SA UN) DMPA Oi 


is this all: man was always seeking God; and, according to the 
later apologists, he was compelled to do so by the indwelling of 
His Word on their heart. This argument is clinched by an 
appeal of two Stoic poets, Aratus and Cleanthes. When man 
realizes his kinship with God he must logically forsake idolatry. 

“Being therefore of God’s race we ought not to imagine 
the Divine to be like silver or gold graven by man’s de- 
signing skill” (Acts xvii. 29). 

The speech concludes with a solemn declaration of coming 
judgement. 

“Now the times of ignorance God overlooked, and now 
announces to men that all should repent everywhere, be- 
cause he has set a day in which he is about to judge the 
world they live in in righteousness by a man whom he has 
appointed, and has given assurance to all (that this is so) 
by raising him from the dead” (Acts xvii. 30-31). 

There are several characteristic features of Paul’s teaching 
here. In the first place the speech dwells on the graciousness 
of God in overlooking the errors of mankind. The certainty 
of the judgement is in accordance with what he was soon about 
to write to Thessalonica. Besides, the reticence with which 
he alludes to Jesus reminds us of at least one of the early 
apologists. 

The effect of the speech is described as a comparative failure. 
No church is said to have been founded at Athens: the men- 
tion of a resurrection caused the Apostle’s hearers to deride 
him, and only a few believers, Dionysius and Areopagite and 
a lady named Damaris are mentioned by name. It 1s, however, 
significant that Dionysius is the only associate of St. Paul who 
played a prominent part in the tradition of the Church. In 
the Middle Ages the work which was attributed to him occupied 
almost as important a place in Christian thought as the genuine 
writings of the Apostle.’ 


1 The writings supposed to be by Dionysius the Areopagite are first heard of 
at a conference at Constantinople in ap. 532. They were translated into Latin 
by John Scotus Eriugena in the ninth century, and became the handbook of 
Medieval mysticism. 


154 


Pree MESS TON rOwAC HATA 


Whether the speech at Athens was really delivered by 
St. Paul it is impossible to determine. At any rate, it is among 
the most significant utterances in Acts as the first approach 
made by Christians to the educated world. The culture of 
Athens and Christianity had now joined issue; and the legiti- 
mate outcome of Paul’s speech on Mars Hill was the closing of 
the Athenian schools by Justinian nearly five centuries after its 
delivery. 

From Athens Paul betook himself to Corinth, where ac- 
cording to Acts a great crisis in his missionary career occurred; 
for here he made a definite breach with the synagogue and 
established a wholly Gentile church. At Corinth also he met 
with two new colleagues, Aquila and Priscilla his wife, 
who brought him into touch with Rome. Whether this couple 
accepted the Gospel from Paul is not stated. They had 
left Rome owing to the order of Claudius expelling the Jews; 
and Suetonius, a later authority, who, however, may have used 
contemporary records, says that this was due to tumults about 
“Chrestus”? It is possible, therefore, that Aquila and Pris- 
cilla were believers in Jesus before they came to Corinth. 
Evidently they travelled widely, for Aquila was a native of 
Pontus, and we hear of him and his wife as being twice at 
Rome and also at Ephesus, as well as Corinth. They were 
certainly devoted to Paul, and as he says (Romans xvi), 
ready to die for him. Apparently Priscilla, or Prisca, was 
the more prominent of the two as her name is twice placed 
before that of her husband. They were evidently people of 
means, plying the business of “tent-making,” whatever that 
may mean, and Paul joined them in order to maintain himself. 

Paul, so Acts reports, was disputing in the synagogue every 
Sabbath and was winning over both Jews and Greeks. Noth- 
ing is said of any opposition to his teaching; for as at Athens 
and elsewhere, as long as he confined himself to generalities, 
his teaching was exceedingly acceptable. It was only when 
Silas and Timothy arrived at Corinth from Macedonia that 
Paul began to declare his strong convictions, probably not only 
that Jesus was the expected Messiah, but that all distinction 


155, 


SACD NT eB raAwueE 


between Jew and Gentile was annihilated by Him. When Paul 
declared his message openly and the Jews opposed him, he 
renounced connection with them by solemnly shaking his gar- 
ments and saying, “Your blood be on your head: I am clean: 
from henceforth I go to the Gentiles.” He then removed 
to the house of Titius Justus near the synagogue and organized 
a Christian church. Justus was a God-fearer, not a proselyte; 
but one leader of the synagogue, named Crispus, joined the 
new community and was baptized with all his family, by Paul 
himself (cf. I Cor. 1. 14). Thus in Corinth a Christian church 
made the momentous step of actually separating from the Syn- 
agogue (Acts xviii. I-11). 

Paul now settled in Corinth and remained there longer than 
in any place since his departure from Antioch on his missionary 
journey with Barnabas. For a year and six months he con- 
tinued to teach the Corinthian converts; and was so far as 
we know free from molestation. God foretold this to him 
in a vision by night. ‘Fear not but go on to speak and be 
not silent, because I am with thee, and no one shall set on 
thee to do thee harm; for I have much people in this city” 
(Acts xviii. 10). 

Unlike Philippi, a colony, or Thessalonica, a free city, 
Corinth was not ruled by local pretors, or native magistrates, 
but was the seat of a proconsular government. A Jewish mob 
did not dare to cause trouble and Paul remained unmolested. 
When he was attacked by his enemies it was not by a tumult 
but by a formal accusation before Gallio, to whom the province 
of Achaia had been assigned by the Senate.’ 

Gallio, the brother of Seneca and uncle of the poet Lucan, 
was regarded with great affection by his friends as a cultured 
and amiable man, but by the irony of Fate his name has become 
proverbial for contemptuous indifference to higher things. 
Nothing can be more unjust than that he should be thus 
branded, since his conduct in connection with St. Paul was just 
what that of a wise magistrate ought to have been. The Jews 

2 An inscription has been discovered at Delphi which implies that Gallio was 
Proconsul of Achaia in a.p. 51 or 52. 


156 


Piha MESS ft ONgeE One CHA TA 


of Thessalonica had brought a charge of sedition against Paul, 
those of Corinth one of violating their law. How far a Jew- 
ish community was self-governing with a legal right to inflict 
penalties on recalcitrant members of its community is very 
hard to determine. Perhaps the Corinthian synagogue was 
endeavouring to impose upon the credulity of a new Proconsul, 
and to induce him to expel Paul from the city as a disturber of 
the peace. But Paul was not simply a Jew, he had his rights as 
a Roman citizen, and Gallio was in no mood to listen to 
charges which were not intelligible to him. He plainly told 
the Apostle’s accusers, “I would reasonably listen to you if 
you charged this man with crime or fraud, but since it is only 
a matter of your peculiar law I will not decide the question, as 
it is one for you to settle among yourselves.” Thus the Jews 
were discomfited and declared to have no case, and the mob, 
delighted at their rebuff, beat Sosthenes the ruler of the syna- 
gogue in the Proconsul’s presence, since he had shown that 
he was not going to be influenced by the clamour of fanatics. 
“But Gallio cared nothing for this” (Acts xviii. 12-17). 

After this Paul protected by the law remained “many days” 
at Corinth and finally sailed from the eastern port of Cen- 
chreze accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. St. Luke adds 
a curious note. “Having cut his hair at Cenchree for he had a 
vow” (Acts xviii. 18). Whatever this may mean, the object 
of the historian was evidently to show that, despite his cham- 
pionship of Gentiles’ rights Paul was himself careful to observe 
the law of his people. 

The narrative of Acts is so brief that it necessarily leaves 
us with many unexplained incidents. One of these is the 
sudden disappearance in Acts of Silas as a companion of Paul. 
He and Timothy had joined him at Corinth and so far as Acts 
is concerned the only further mention of Timothy is in a list 
of those who accompanied him to Jerusalem. Of Silas we 
hear no more except for an allusion to him in the First 
Epistle to the Corinthians; and for a time Paul seems to have 
continued his labours in conjunction with Aquila and Priscilla. 

The foundation of the Corinthian Church was the estab- 


157 


Si AVLON GL eaten le 


lishment of a Christian centre from which the Gospel could 
be carried westward. From this time forward the ambition 
of Paul was to reach Rome. Other missionaries seem to have 
flocked to Corinth, and for generations it occupied an important 
place in the Christian world, and the comparatively long so- 
journ of the Apostle at Corinth was fully justified by the 
result. 

The Epistles to the Corinthians which will be treated of 
hereafter are, especially the First, the most valuable docu- 
ments which those who desire to construct a picture of early 
Christianity possess; and before treating of their contents, it 
may be useful to endeavour to give a sketch of some of the 
characteristics of his Greek converts. 

Felicitous, but never insincere, in the complimentary lan- 
guage with which he addresses a church, St. Paul thanks God 
that the Corinthians are enriched in their power of expressing 
themselves and in their sagacity, and says that “they lack no 
gift”; but he does not praise their steadfastness as he does 
that of the Macedonians of Thessalonica. In fact he implies 
that they had accepted the Gospel with more intelligence than 
sincerity (I Cor. i. 4-9). 

He feels that they are true Greeks, more gifted in mind 
than in heart, disposed to accept Christianity as an intellec- 
tual system rather than a spiritual power. We see from the 
First Epistle how ready the Corinthians were to receive new 
ideas, and to range themselves under different religious 
leaders, forming factions in the same spirit as the older Greek 
states did politically. The letter goes on to illustrate the 
difficulty with which the converts abandoned the easy morals 
of Greek life for the severer standards the Apostle had set 
before them as demanded by Christ. He rebukes their love 
of superficial knowledge, their loquacity, their litigiousness, 
their lack of self restraint. In every field of enterprise Paul 
seems to have found that his message was differently received, 
and in no places was the contrast more marked than when he 
passed from Macedonia to Achaia. 


158 


CT AvP EEE, Tae Ty io L 
EPHESUS 


THE next scene of labour is Ephesus, a city destined to play 
a very important part in Christian history, though its chief 
traditions are connected with the Apostle John and not with 
mt. Paul. 

The account in Acts is here by no means as precise as in the 
previous chapters, and the reader has to pick his way with 
some uncertainty. It begins with relating a short stay at 
Ephesus, after which the Apostle proceeded to Czxsarea; and 
it is not expressly said that Paul went to Jerusalem, as the 
name of the Holy City is not mentioned. All we read is that 
Paul, on leaving Czsarea, “went up and saluted the church” 
(Acts xviii. 22), and from thence went to Antioch. 

But though the visit to Jerusalem is doubtful, the relation 
between the Apostle and the Mother Church of Jerusalem 
merits careful consideration, especially since it indicates that he 
was by no means desirous of severing his relations with the 
original home of the Christian community and the centre of all 
Judaism. 

Unquestionably, where a principle which he considered to 
be vital was concerned, Paul was ready to act in complete inde- 
pendence of the Church of Jerusalem and even of the original 
Disciples of Jesus; and at times he spoke his mind with great 
freedom; for he was a man naturally impulsive by disposition. 
But all the same Paul recognized the need of the believers 
remaining at unity, nor was he disposed to abandon the customs 
of his ancestors. Provided the Gentile converts were allowed 
to accept Christ and were not forced into Judaism, Paul per- 
sonally was ready scrupulously to live as under the Law. He 


159 


SASL Slee ASU ar, 


was also anxious to retain the good will and approval of the 
Church at Jerusalem, and to check any tendency on the part 
of the strict observers of the Law to hinder the progress of 
his work. Accordingly, on leaving Corinth, he sailed at once 
for Syria in order to visit the Mother Church, and probably 
to report what progress he had made. Landing therefore at 
Ephesus, he left his friends Priscilla and Aquila there, and 
though the Jews of the city, on hearing him in their synagogue, 
entreated him to remain, he hastened on his long journey 
across the peninsula of Asia Minor to Jerusalem. ‘To all ap- 
pearance his interview with the leaders of the Church there 
was a success, since Paul is said to have gone to Antioch, re- 
mained there some time, and then to have gone “in order” 
from one church to another in the Galatian and Phrygian dis- 
tricts. This, however, is all we know of what may have 
occupied months or even a longer period. Nothing is said of 
opposition on the part of Christian rivals and Jewish opponents 
(Acts xviii. 18-23). 

During Paul’s visit to Syria and the East, Priscilla and 
Aquila came into contact with a man who introduces us to 
several new aspects of primitive Christianity—“A certain 
Jew, Apollos by name, an Alexandrian by race, a learned man 
mighty in his knowledge of Scripture, came to Ephesus. He 
had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and with fervour 
of spirit was teaching about Jesus—but he only knew the 
baptism of John.” As he spoke out boldly in the synagogue 
Priscilla and Aquila took him into conference and expounded 
to him the way of the Lord more correctly” (Acts xviii. 
24-26). 

This passage presents many difficulties, which must be stated 
before they are discussed. 

(1) In the first place what was the “baptism of John” as 
contrasted with that of Jesus? (2) Was there a sect or party 
in Judaism adhering to John the Baptist apart from the fol- 
lowers of Jesus? (3) If so, how was it that Apollos, before 
he met with Priscilla and Aquila, can have taught “accurately” 
about Jesus? Bound up with these questions is Paul’s sub- 

160 


EPHESUS 


sequent action in baptizing twelve men at Ephesus, who had 
previously only received “the baptism of John” (Acts xix. 3). 

It has been indicated earlier, when describing the sermon 
in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch, that even in that remote 
spot, the Jews were assumed to know about the Baptist (Acts 
xiil. 24). The way in which all four evangelists lay stress 
on the baptism of Jesus by John is significant; yet Paul and 
the later writers of the New Testament, and even the so-called 
Apostolic Fathers, do not mention him. 

(1) The baptism of John is contrasted with that of Jesus 
as a baptism of water as distinguished from one of the spirit 
(Mark 1. 8). Yet, according to Acts, water baptism was prac- 
tised by the Church from the first. It is not stated that 
Apollos was rebaptized, but only that he received fuller 
instruction. The twelve Disciples whom Paul met with at 
Ephesus were rebaptized; and when the Apostle laid his hands 
on them they received the gift of the Spirit, proving that they 
had done so by speaking with tongues and prophesying. All 
that it 1s necessary to remark here is that the Christians con- 
sidered John’s dispensation inferior to that of Jesus since He 
introduced an outpouring of God’s Spirit which John had not 
been able to do. 

(2) To suggest an answer to the question, whether there 
was a sect or party in Judaism who followed the Baptist apart 
from the believers in Jesus, it must not be forgotten that, 
with the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple 
by Titus, all ancient differences which had characterized the 
early Jewish religion had disappeared, and no more is heard 
of the Essenes and Therapeute; even the once powerful 
Sadducees fade into obscurity. There is no reason, therefore, 
for doubting that possibly there was an influential sect of 
followers of the Baptist in the first century of our era, espe- 
cially as the Gospels lay so much stress on the association of 
Jesus with John. If, as many suppose, the Fourth Gospel 
is as late as the end of the First or the beginning of the Second 
Century, its insistence on the close relation between the two 
teachers is important, because it proves how long the following 


161 


SVATLUN Hie re ee 


of John existed as a school, possibly friendly, but almost cer- 
tainly independent of that of Jesus, since the Evangelist felt 
the need of emphasizing the saying attributed to the Baptist 
“Fie (Jesus) must increase, but I must decrease” (John 
iii. 30). The attitude taken by Priscilla and Aquila towards 
Apollos, and Paul towards the twelve men at Ephesus, 
appears to indicate that the Christian Church was taking the 
Baptist’s disciples to itself, when they acknowledged that Jesus 
was the Messiah foretold by John, and that the baptism of 
the spirit was the true baptism which he had foreshadowed. 

(3) The next subject of inquiry, however, must be how it 
was that Apollos could have “taught accurately about Jesus, 
knowing only the baptism of John.” Apollos was a learned 
Alexandrian Jew and had apparently no affiliation to any 
Christian body when he came first as a teacher to Ephesus. 
His preaching in the synagogue attracted the attention of 
Priscilla and Aquila, who perceived that the gist of his message 
was the same as theirs in so far as it taught the coming of the 
Messiah much as they, Paul, and the Church at large, were 
proclaiming it. This is important because it shows, not only 
that the teaching of the later disciples of John was Messianic, 
but also that such preaching was sure of wide acceptance in 
the Synagogue, and probably was the main subject of many 
sermons delivered in that age. This would account for the 
favour with which Paul’s preaching is said to have been re- 
ceived when first he visited a synagogue and before he had time 
to explain his views of the result of the appearance of Jesus as 
the Christ. Priscilla and Aquila had little difficulty. in inducing 
Apollos to join them when he was convinced that: Jesus was 
“the more powerful Coming One” announced by the Baptist. 
We may surmise that Apollos’ teaching about Messiah rested 
upon an interpretation of prophecy similar to that adopted by 
the followers of Jesus, and that Priscilla and Aquila, in con- 
junction with Paul, had a considerable share in bringing the 
Messianism of the Baptist into line with that of the followers 
of Jesus. It is impossible to speak with certainty but this view 
helps to explain a difhcult problem about the reason why so 

162 


EPHESUS 


small a book as Acts devotes so much space to the relation of 
Paul and his friends with John the Baptist and his disciples. 

On his return to Ephesus, from whence Apollos had been 
dispatched by Priscilla and Aquila to the church at Corinth, 
Paul began by preaching in the synagogues, and on being 
silenced by the authorities, taught independently in a house 
called the “school of Tyrannus.” The section of Acts which 
follows deals with the interesting subject of the relation of 
the Church towards the magic of the age (Acts xix. 11-20). 

The letters of Paul have many allusions to demonology 
and the exercise of miraculous powers; and this fact has caused 
many of his critics to disparage the general soundness of his 
judgements. Under the conditions of his age and the cir- 
cumstances under which he lived it would have been impos- 
sible for the Apostle not to have held a belief in the existence 
of innumerable spiritual beings and of their power over the 
lives and fortunes of men, and he could not possibly avoid 
alluding to them in writing to his converts. Acts gives ex- 
amples of the power he possessed at Ephesus, over the demons 
who were believed to have taken possession over certain people, 
and of his attitude in regard to magic. 

All mental disorders, sudden seizures, convulsions, epi- 
lepsy and the like, were attributed to evil spirits or demons, 
j.e., inferior Gods worshipped by the heathen and considered to 
be powers of Satan by the Jews. It is unquestionable that a 
stronger will can calm lunatics and bring them to a saner 
condition of mind. The Jews undoubtedly exercised this 
power, and the Christians with their enthusiasm and strong 
faith in God may have possessed it even more fully. Our 
Lord was conspicuous for his influence over the possessed, so 
also in a less degree were his disciples, and it was admitted 
that the sons, or pupils, of the Pharisees had it. At Ephesus 
Paul had much success in curing insane persons, or in the lan- 
guage of the New Testament in “casting out devils;” but 
there were also some Jews “sons of Sceva,” the “High Priest,” 
who were his envious rivals, Finding that Paul used the name 

163 


SA CIN STA a 


of Jesus with effect when he exorcised an evil spirit, they, 
considering it to be a powerful magical spell, adopted the 
formula “I exorcize thee by Jesus, whom Paul is proclaiming.” 
But as a proof that the name of the Saviour could not be 
used by those who had no part in Him, the demon cried out 
“Jesus I acknowledge and Paul I know, but who are ye?” 
The possessed man then rushed at them with all the fury of 
a lunatic and drove them out, stripped of their garments and 
wounded by his vehement attack (Acts xix. 13-16). 

This throws a curious light on the habits of thought and 
belief in the days of Paul. The believers were credited with 
a peculiar influence over the unseen world in the name of 
Jesus. Miracles in Acts are said to have been wrought by pro- 
nouncing it and Peter and John said expressly that the healing 
of the lame man in the Temple was due, not to any virtue 
of their own, but to its power (Acts ili. 16). When Paul 
tells the Philippians that God had highly exalted Christ 
Jesus and given him the name that is above every name, he 
adds, not that all mankind, but that everything “in heaven 
and earth and under the earth must bow at the name of Jesus,” 
meaning that He was above all those unseen powers which 
inspired so much fear in the men of that age, to whom it was 
an immense relief to learn that when they became the servants 
of Christ they had nothing to fear from the innumerable 
evil spirits by which the heathen might be tormented (Phil. 
ii. 9-10). ‘The intensity of belief in demons is shown by the 
fact that in every ancient order of baptism exorcism played 
a prominent part. Paul seems to have been highly esteemed 
as a teacher at Ephesus and to have been credited with miracu- 
lous powers. Not only did he heal the sick and cast out 
demons in the name of Jesus, but we are told that garments 
which had touched his body were able to cure disease, as the 
shadow of Peter is said elsewhere to have done. On reading 
this one feels almost in the atmosphere of medizval hagiology; 
and there is nothing similar related of Jesus Himself. But 
for what we know of cures wrought by auto-suggestion one 
might be suspicious: now it seems possible and even probable 

164. 


EPHESUS 


that St. Luke reported what had actually occurred (Acts xix. 
11-12; cf. Acts v. 15). 

But his object in relating these facts is obvious by what 
follows. There was a strong reaction against magic. Those 
who practised, what the Authorized Version calls “curious arts,” 
renounced them publicly, confessed that they had been in the 
wrong and burned the books which had directed their attempts 
in this direction. It was estimated that their value amounted 
to well nigh two thousand pounds or ten thousand dollars in 
modern money. 

Recent discoveries have revealed the immense popularity 
of magic under the Roman Empire. The papyri discovered 
in Egypt are filled with mystic formule. The Jews were not 
behindhand in their devotion to spells and charms and many 
of their names of God, the Angels, and of persons, were be- 
lieved to have been of great efficacy—Ephesus was a special 
centre of magicians and was famed for its spells, Ephesia 
grammata as they were called. Paul was attacking the evil in 
one of its strongholds. Despite, however, the credulity of 
the age, in which the believers of Jesus undoubtedly shared, 
the Gospel came as a great deliverer to men under the domin- 
ion of superstition. Men lived in constant fear of unseen 
powers and magical influences; evil beings surrounded them; 
they felt that they were subject to Fate to such a degree that 
they had no control whatever over their destinies, all depend- 
ing on the position of the stars at the time of their birth. To 
be relieved of all these terrors by their trust in Jesus was 
an immense gain if only because His favour could only be won 
by a good life in His service, whereas evil spirits might be 
propitiated by evil deeds. In its lowest aspects, therefore, 
when it was regarded as a kind of superior magic, Christianity 
was an immense benefit and relief to humanity; and, when 
_ accepted in a spirit of loyalty to the Son of the God of all good- 
ness, it gave its adherents an immeasurable superiority to the 
rest of the world. This explains a great deal of what at first 
sight seems obscure in some of Paul’s Epistles where he exalts 
Jesus above all other powers, in which most of his converts 


165 


SAINT PAUL 


certainly believed, but could safely ignore because they served 
a Master to Whom they were entirely subjected. 

The last event related in connection with Ephesus is the 
tumult in the theatre. This may be considered absolutely 
genuine because Paul himself is expressly stated to have had 
no part in what occurred; but, owing to his friends’ influence, 
to have remained throughout in the background. The two 
occasions on which St. Paul’s company of missionaries came in 
contact with a heathen mob, at Philippi and Ephesus, had this 
in common: the religion they preached interfered with busi- 
ness. It was the same a generation or more later in Bithynia, 
where Pliny’s action against Christianity helped the local 
farmers to sell their fodder to those who provided the animals 
for sacrifice. 

In a city like Ephesus, seat of the imperial government, 
Paul had been able to remain comparatively unmolested for 
two (Acts xix. 9) or even three (Acts xx. 31) years. It is 
true that he alludes to a persecution or some trial when he 
says “he fought beasts in Ephesus” but it is impossible to know 
whether he is speaking figuratively of the difficulties he there 
encountered or of actual persecution. At any rate he evidently 
was able to do successful missionary work, to carry on a cor- 
respondence with his converts, and to make extensive plans for 
the future, first to visit Macedonia and Achaia, then to go to 
Jerusalem and finally to make his way to Rome. While at 
Ephesus he sent Timothy and Erastus to Corinth to prepare 
for his visit to his converts in that city, though in Acts (xix. 
21-22), it is said he dispatched them to Macedonia. 

It was whilst preparing to leave Ephesus that the tumult 
broke out, and the whole story has a strangely modern ring 
about it. Piety and curiosity attracted visitors to Ephesus to 
worship the local Artemis, whom the Romans called Diana, 
but really corresponded to no western goddess, being the repre- 
sentative of the oriental idea of the female deity of fertility, 
and to see her world-famed temple. It was natural that they 
should desire souvenirs of their visit, and that the manufac- 
ture of representations of the shrine of the goddess should be 


166 


EPHESUS 


a considerable and lucrative business. A silversmith, named 
Demetrius, evidently a dangerous demagogue, assembled his 
fellow craftsmen and made a speech pointing out that if 
Paul’s proselytizing were allowed to continue it would spell 
ruin to their trade. His address as reported in Acts was exactly 
of a sort to cause a disturbance in an eastern city, beginning 
with an appeal to trade interest, and culminating in an incite- 
ment of religious passion. Condensed as it is, it is a literary 
masterpiece, as it gives all that might be, and probably was said 
at length, though the diction is a trifle obscure. 

“Fellow craftsmen,” said Demetrius, “you know that our 
welfare depends on this manufacture, and you are constantly 
seeing and being told that not only here in Ephesus but in 
almost all Asia this fellow Paul has persuaded and won over 
crowds of people, saying that gods are not made with hands.” 
But as if this appeal to the interests of one trade were not 
sufficient, Demetrius aroused general indignation by adding: 


“And not only is our business in danger of losing 
credit but the temple of great Artemis will be nothing 
thought of, and the goddess whom all Asia, yes, and the 
civilized world, worships, will be thrust from her majesty” 
(Acts xix. 23-28). 


This was sufficient; a cry raised “great Artemis of Ephesus” 
the crowd caught it up and a mob gathered at the streets. The 
people seized two Macedonian followers of Paul, and rushed 
into the amphitheatre where the magistrates also had betaken 
themselves. Confusion became the worse confounded. “Some 
cried one thing and some another and the majority did not 
know what it was all about.” Seeing his friends Gaius and 
Aristarchus in the hands of the mob Paul was anxious to enter 
the theatre to try and save them; but here, and this throws 
a light on the extent of his influence outside his own religious 
circle, some of the Asiarchs, or delegates of the different cities, 
who superintended the sacred games, sent to beg him not to 
enter the theatre. 

167 


DAWN Seas ty 


Fearing the riot might result in an attack on themselves, 
the Jews put forward Alexander as their spokesman; but his 
presence only infuriated the crowd who silenced him with 
shouts—“Great Artemis of Ephesus, Great Artemis of 
Ephesus.” ‘This went on for two hours till the Scribe of the 
City secured silence and by a wise and diplomatic speech in- 
duced the crowd to disperse. 

He reminded the people that their clamour as to the great- 
ness of the goddess was foolish, because every one knew that 
Ephesus was the guardian of her temple and of her symbol, a 
meteoric stone which had fallen from the sky. Then he de- 
clared that Paul’s companions could not be accused of violating 
the temple or insulting Artemis. Finally he reminded the 
mob that the government would call Ephesus to account for 
the disturbance because Demetrius and his associate could have 
instituted legal proceedings (Acts xix. 35-41). 

In reading the singularly vivid account in Acts one is irre- 
sistibly reminded of a native religious riot in the present day 
and of the way a wise administrator of a western govern- 
ment would deal with oriental fanatics. 


168 


CHAPTER XIV 
PAUL'S ACTIVITY AT.EPHESUS 


THE two years spent at Ephesus are perhaps the most im- 
portant in the life of Paul. From there he set himself with 
the aid of Priscilla, Aquila and Apollos to bind together the 
churches he had founded in Macedonia and Achaia, for which 
purpose no place strategically could be better chosen than 
Ephesus as a glance at the map will show. The Apostle also 
with some success laboured to create what we should call a 
Christian hinterland in the province of Asia, and thus to estab- 
lish colonies of believers on both sides of the AZgean. Much 
was done at Ephesus to add the disciples of the Baptist to the 
strength of the Church, and Paul made a momentous step in 
declaring war on heathen sorcery and magic. Doubtless the 
mission met with Jewish hostility; but little is said of this in 
Acts and it was, as we have seen, a Gentile disturbance which 
made its continuance in the city impossible. 

At Ephesus we bid farewell to the guidance of Acts as 
to Paul’s activities as a missionary traveller, for nothing definite 
is said of his adventures on his second journey to Macedonia 
and Achaia nor of his missionary preaching on the long journey 
to Jerusalem which ended with his arrest. The character of 
his operations as a preacher to the Gentiles must be sought in 
his Epistles and his work depicted by patching together casual 
notices which tend to illustrate the subject. At Ephesus Paul 
wrote one and possibly two—if the letter to the Galatians 
belongs to this period—of his most important letters. The 
so-called First Epistle to the Corinthians is part of a corres- 
pondence with that Church, and is absolutely priceless for the 
light which it throws on a primitive Christian society. It 

169 


STANUNie Pp ASU 


is the more valuable because Paul was evidently writing to 
meet the immediate needs of a community, and not composing 
a treatise or epistle with an eye to posterity. Many of his 
allusions therefore are obscure, and even unintelligible to us, 
but as a rule his meaning is sufficiently clear, and we are 
often surprised at the form Christianity assumed among 
people when they first accepted the Gospel. 

Not that this surprise is justified: the assumption that when 
an Apostle gathered together a Church it consisted solely 
of simple and unsophisticated believers rests on no sound 
basis. The society at Corinth was mainly composed of 
Gentiles, who, like those of Thessalonica, expected an 1mme- 
diate return of Jesus Christ. They looked for a miraculous 
dramatic salvation, not for one by the slower process of an 
altered life. What wonder, therefore, if they indulged in the 
lax morality, the superstitions, the religious disorders to which 
they had been accustomed from childhood. Paul soon found 
that his work was not simply to preach the Gospel, and to 
receive as brethren in Christ those whose heart his burning 
words had touched. His duty was also, to use his favourite 
word “to edify,” that is to build up a Christian character in 
those whom he had persuaded to confess Christ. Herein lay 
his true greatness. Had we only the Acts, we should be apt 
to imagine that his triumphs were those of the preacher: 
with his Epistles before us we see that his chief gift was deal- 
ing with individuals. Several letters had evidently passed 
between Paul and the Church of Corinth which, now that he 
was leaving Ephesus, addressed to him a series of questions 
of a more or less trivial character. But Paul had more knowl- 
edge of the Corinthian Christians than they suspected; and 
in his letter he not only deals with their difficulties as they 
presented them, but with failings of theirs of which perhaps 
they hoped he was ignorant. 

The variety of which Christianity has shown itself capable, 
and is a source of strength in so far as it proves able to exist 
under the circumstances of every age, was deplorably mani- 
fested in the factions which divided the infant Church. At 

170 


eA 5) ALC I DV ever Ay le PEE. S.Ty S 


Corinth the appearance of a new teacher was followed by a 
new party. Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and even Christ, were 
chosen as leaders of factions under their names (I Cor. i. 12ff.). 
With great tact Paul is silent about all but himself and Apollos, 
whom he shows to be no more than the ministers through 
whom the Corinthians became believers—“Paul it was that 
planted, and Apollos watered, but it is God who makes the 
plant to grow” (I Cor. iii. 3-9). 

The main argument of the first section of this letter is the 
insufficiency of the human intellect to which the Corinthians 
attached excessive importance, and the comparative insignifi- 
cance of any teacher as contrasted with his message. In one 
pithy sentence Paul puts clearly the defects of both classes 
of his converts. “The Jews require a sign, and the Greeks 
seek wisdom.” The danger of the Jew when he accepted 
Jesus as his Lord was that he expected a catastrophic deliver- 
ance by Him as the Messiah. To him the new religion would 
bring an instant and miraculous salvation, probably in the 
form of a triumph over the Gentile world. It was otherwise 
with the Greek, who demanded intellectual emancipation, and 
found in Christianity a fresher and more stimulating philos- 
ophy. This led him to delight in the mental activity promoted 
by the factions which Paul deplored, and causes the Apostle 
to insist that his Gospel is not a human wisdom, so much as a 
new power of God which has come into the world. This made 
his teaching “an offence to the Jews,” because it does not 
emphasize the supernatural by external signs, and folly to 
the Greeks, because it does not satisfy their intellectual crav- 
ings. Nevertheless it is the power and wisdom of God, which, 
for all its apparent simplicity, overcomes all the pride of man. 
It is evident that God has not called to the Gospel of His 
Son the wise and noble of the world; but rather, to prove 
His power, He had chosen poor and humble things, which to 
the world are practically non-existent to confound its arro- 
gance (I Cor. 1. 26). 

And then, with exquisite irony, Paul reminds the Corinth- 
lans that for all their fancied cleverness they are mere children. 


Al 


SIAR Na PANO) AL 


They have no conception that wisdom really is spiritual, not 
the superficial wisdom of a world so blind that it crucified 
“the Lord of glory” (I Cor. ii. 1-tii. 2). This is why he 
used such simple teaching “Feeding them with milk rather 
than with strong food”, because they were mere infants. Let 
them, he says, put aside their false wisdom and receive the 
true. Then all things will be theirs whether they be “Paul, 
or Apollos, or Cephas, or life or death or the present or 
the future; for all are theirs because they are Christ’s, and 
Christ is God’s” (I Cor. iii. 22-23). 

This brings the matter to a head: nothing really matters 
but Christ. The key to all Paul’s so-called theology is the 
absolute supremacy of Christ as the Wisdom and Power of 
God. It is often asserted that Paul gave Christ His place 
among men, but it 1s more correct to say that the influence 
of Christ made Paul what he was. The Apostle is the first and 
greatest example of the many who did not see the Master in 
the flesh and “yet believed.” 

Paul next goes on to speak of two scandals at Corinth of 
which he had been informed. One was the incestuous marriage 
of a man with his father’s wife, an offence which “is not so 
much as named among the Gentiles” (I Cor. v. 1); the other 
was the propensity to litigation of the new Christians (I Cor. vi. 
1-11). For both the Apostle provided a statesmanlike remedy. 

Paul recognizes the power of public opinion: the whole 
Church is to assemble and to deal with the question of the 
crime. The guilty man is to be solemnly ostracized, cast out 
of the Church, “delivered over to Satan by whom he will be 
punished by disease”—for Paul believed in common with most 
Christians that sickness was the just penalty of sin—to the 
destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day 
of the Lord. In this way he lays down the principle that 
Christian penalties are remedial rather than vindictive (I Cor. 
Vv. 13-5). 

As to litigation; the temporal affairs, about which the Corin- 
thians were going for decision to the Gentile courts, were so 
trivial that the least esteemed in the Church ought to be able 

172 


PEA Si ACh Ts TV ie Tag Yio aie Tae Bs PASS CES 


to decide them, and surely some wise man could be found 
to prevent the scandal of Christians clamouring for justice to 
some heathen magistrate. The object of both suggestions is 
to make each Christian Church into a self-governing body, on 
the model already provided by the Jewish Synagogue. 

Next comes the answer to the questions in the Corinthian 
letter to St. Paul, which seem to us trivial enough; and the 
Apostle’s replies to them are some reflections of the spirit of 
his age, whilst others are revelations of a wisdom which lays 
down principles applicable for all time. 

As regards marriage the debate turned apparently on 
whether Christians ought to enter the marriage state at all, 
what should happen when the husband or wife is married 
to an unbeliever, and, what is the duty of a father to his 
unmarried daughters? It is difficult to give Paul’s answers 
to these questions without lengthy explanations of each, none 
of which can be entirely satisfactory. Here it seems more 
advisable to examine the general principle which he lays down. 
The key to this is his words “The time is short” (I Cor. vil. 
29). Paul looks, not to the future of humanity, but to the 
speedy coming of Christ and to the end of the world. There- 
fore the unmarried state is best, for domestic anxieties only 
distract us from the important duty of pleasing God. But to 
prevent incontinence marriage is allowable and lawful (I Cor. 
Naiteu nthe) 

As to a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever if it 
interferes with the Christian’s spiritual progress he or she 
had better withdraw. But really nothing matters. Every 
one had better abide in the situation in which the call of God 
came to him. If as a Jew, let him remain one, if as a slave, 
why trouble to obtain his freedom? The state of life here 
is quite a secondary consideration. Thus a girl may be dis- 
posed of in marriage—for this was a matter for the father 
to decide or not as he might think fit—but the wisest course in 
view of her salvation is to keep her unmarried at home. These 
answers, however unsatisfactory to us, are consistent from the 
standpoint of one who is convinced of the imminence of the 


173 


SA DIN ay Pea ae 


end of the existing order of the world (I Cor. vii. 1-7, and 
25-28). 

When it comes to the question of the lawfulness of eating 
food which had possibly been offered to idols, St. Paul rises 
to much greater heights. The Apostolic Council at Jerusalem 
had legislated against Gentile converts hurting Jewish sus- 
ceptibilities by eating unclean food, and the question of 
eating with the Gentiles had caused the misunderstanding 
among the leaders of the church at Antioch. In Corinth the 
affair took a different form. Apparently the majority of con- 
verts were Gentiles, and, if they took their meals with their 
relatives or friends and ate meat, they were in danger of 
incurring the reproach of idolatry, because the animal might 
have been offered as a sacrifice. ‘The situation was therefore 
different from that contemplated at Jerusalem, and this may 
in part account for Paul making no allusion to the decree. 

The solution of the difficulty caused by these scruples in 
St. Paul’s words is “All that is for sale in the market you may 
eat, but for the sake of your consciences ask no question about 
it (7.e., whether it is part of a sacrificial victim); for the earth 
is the Lord’s and all that is therein. If any unbeliever invite 
you and you wish to go, eat whatever is set before you asking 
no question for conscience sake. But if any one should remark 
This is part of the sacrifice do not eat of it for the sake 
of the man who told you so and of conscience. I do not mean 
your own but of the man who told you” (I Cor. x. 25-31). 

This advice, practical and sensible as it is, is not as valuable 
to us as the arguments by which the Apostle supports it. He 
rises to sublime heights of eloquence, and the principles he 
inculcates are valuable for all time. He emphasizes the seri- 
ousness of the Christian calling by the metaphor of the foot 
race, in which all run but only one receives the prize (I Cor. 
1x. 24-27). He shows how in the wilderness all died; and 
only two of the Israelites came through in safety to the 
promised land, though all were baptized in the Red Sea and 
drank water from the spiritual rock which followed them 
(I Cor. x. 1-11). But above all he insists on the need of 


174 


Peaster, ACG iy Vaya An ere bab te SUS 


respect for the scruples of those who are weak, lest their 
liberty should prove a cause of offence to others. This section 
is full of pungent and epigrammatic phrases, many of which 
have passed into proverbs. “Let him who thinketh he standeth 
take heed lest he fall.” ‘All things are lawful, but all things 
do not edify.” “I became all things to all men, if by any 
means I might save some.” If food cause offence, I will 
eat no flesh lest I cause my brother to stumble.” ‘Whether 
ye eat or drink do all to the glory of God.” The literary style 
of Paul may be open to criticism; but if the merit of what 
a man writes is to produce a lasting impression, Paul here 
reaches the highest pitch of excellence. One of the tersest 
expressions of his convictions and the most biting reproaches of 
the intellectual arrogance of the Corinthians is condensed into 
five words, “Knowledge inflates: but love builds,” or in the 
masterly rendering of the Authorized Version, “Knowledge 
puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” 

St. Paul was fully aware of the value of woman’s help in 
his ministerial work. Lydia, Priscilla, Phebe were valued 
coadjutors. But at Corinth, as often elsewhere, female medi- 
ocrity sought to assert itself by a disregard of social custom and 
in the Christian assemblies the women sought to show their in- 
dependence by appearing unveiled. Paul’s arguments why 
they should not do this may appear to us as almost grotesque, 
but the practical good sense of his conclusion is beyond dispute 
Hle@orixt 3-6'). 

The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper has from time imme- 
morial been regarded with such reverence that the abuse of it at 
Corinth is apt to shock and revolt a modern reader. Yet, when 
we recollect that the believers had only just emerged from 
heathenism, the facts become more intelligible. They had 
been told that Jesus had eaten a supper with His Disciples 
and they celebrated the event in their own fashion. In 
almost every religious society at this time the members par- 
took of a meal in common. It was often of a jovial and 
social character. The Corinthian Christians took each his own 


175 


SAINT PAUL 


basket of food. The poor had too little and the rich too much, 
with the result that whilst “one was hungry another was 
drunken.” Paul heard of this with horror. This disorderly 
meal was no Lord’s Supper. He told his converts that he had 
received from the Master Himself its true meaning. He 
reminded them of what Christ did ‘fon the night that He was 
betrayed.” ‘To eat His Body and drink His Blood was a very 
solemn thing. Sickness and death had followed the profana- 
tion of this great mystery. When they came together they 
must receive each other as brethren. ‘The rest I will put in 
order when I come” (I Cor. xi. 17-34).” 

The long section in which the subject of “spiritual gifts” 
(charismata) is treated, is of special interest because it deals 
with a condition of things which, so far as we know, only 
existed in the Apostolic Age. At all times Christian prophets 
have appeared as well as persons endowed with the power of 
curing disease or of what Paul calls “speaking with tongues.” 
But these have been exceptional, only a few being thus gifted. 
In Corinth and also at Thessalonica it would seem that all, 
or almost all, the converts experienced strange influences which 
they attributed to the Spirit of God. As what follows will 
abundantly show the powers these possessed were not always 
proofs of exalted spirituality or mystic fellowship with the 
Divine: for they were often displayed in an unseemly manner, 
and from a motive of ostentation. Modern science, as well as 
the almost uniform testimony as to religious enthusiasm in 
all ages, admits the possibility of these manifestations; and we 
may conclude that if they occurred as at Corinth they were due 
to the abnormal state of tension the little community was in, 
owing to the constant expectations of a sudden appearance of 
the Messiah. To Paul, though he felt these spiritual impulses, 
many in Corinth were not so much signs of grace, as causes 
of confusion. 

He enumerates the spiritual gifts, a strange mixture of 
acknowledged Christian virtues and miraculous powers. 

1 Throughout this section Paul assumes that the Lord’s Supper in some form 
or other was an integral part of the Christianity of his age. 


176 


Po Ee of ACE LV YA bP HES tS 


“To one is given a word of wisdom, to another a word of 
knowledge, by the same spirit, to another faith . . . to an- 
other gifts of healing ...to another the workings of 
powers, to another prophecy, to another discernment of spirits, 
to another sorts of tongues, to another the interpretation 
of tongues” (I Cor. xii. 8-11). Later he gives this de- 
scription of the exercise and misuse of these spiritual gifts. 

A meeting for the exhibition of the powers bestowed on the 
Corinthians seems to have been as disorderly as their cele- 
bration of the Lord’s Supper. The most highly prized “gift” 
was called speaking with tongues, or in a tongue. This must 
not be confused with the miracle as related as having taken 
place on the day of Pentecost in Acts II, where the Spirit in 
the form of the “tongues as of fire”? was shed abroad on the 
infant Church. Then the believers addressed a multitude 
of various nations and languages so that every one understood 
them. There is no record of such a miracle having been 
repeated. Paul and Barnabas, when the Lycaonians declared 
they were gods, did not understand them. Paul never so 
much as hints to the Corinthians that they should use the 
gift, which he declared he possessed “more than they all,” 
for missionary work. Speaking with tongues to him meant 
uttering strange and unintelligible sounds under strong 
spiritual excitement. When the Corinthians met for devo- 
tional exercise, every one desired to display his gift. Those 
who had some special messages “prophesied,” others, anxious 
to show how strongly the spirit worked in them, spoke with 
tongues. No one was willing to wait his turn. Tongues 
vied with tongues, and prophecy with prophecy, till all was 
a veritable Babel. If, as Paul says, an unbeliever or an unin- 
structed inquirer came to the meeting he would think they 
were raving as in a heathen orgy. The Apostle sternly re- 
proves this scandal. He forbids all public “speaking with 
tongues,” unless some one is there to interpret the meaning; 
and orders all to speak in turn, “for God is not a God of 
confusion but of peace.” All things are to be done decently 
and in order, and “the spirits of the prophets are subject to 


177 


SAT NGS PAUL 


the prophets”—a timely reminder against lack of spiritual 
self-restraint (I Cor. xiv. 1-40). 

All this proves the good sense and practical ability of Paul; 
but in this section of the Epistle he rises to still greater 
heights. He gives the ancient image of the members of 
the body but with a force of inspired genius all his own. 
This leads up to the unforgettable description of charity or 
love in the thirteenth chapter, one of the most beautiful in the 
whole Bible. A question of purely local and temporal interest 
has thus called forth one of the sublimest passages in literature 
in which in a few verses we have the best definition of what the 
spirit of true Christianity should be.” 

The last subject dealt with is that of the resurrection of the 
dead. The fifteenth chapter, in which St. Paul declares his 
burning faith that as Christ is risen, so all who are His will 
rise at the last day, how they will receive a spiritual and 
incorruptible body as different from our own as the full blade 
is from the grain of wheat sown in the earth, how, for those 
who are Christ’s death has no sting and the grave no victory. 
It is a wonderful outburst of eloquence, though the argument 
is at times difficult to follow or even to agree with. It only 
becomes clearer when we remember that the Corinthians were 
so persuaded of the nearness of the coming of Messiah, that 
they, like the Thessalonians, felt that those who died were 
thereby cut off from all hope of resurrection. This is the 
more intelligible in the light of what Paul has previously 
said about death being a punishment of those who had pro- 
faned the Lord’s Supper. ‘The refutation of this error, that 
even those who had died in Christ had no hope of entering 
His kingdom when He shall come in triumph, inspires the 
Apostle to declare his convictions, not in a closely reasoned 
argument but in a pxan of triumph in the victory his Lord 
has won over death and sin, and he carries the Corinthians 


2It is noteworthy that Paul never forgets what he has said earlier in the 
letter, and that every affirmation of what charity is not refers to what has been 
said before. Thus “Charity envieth not” (I Cor. iii. 3)... “is not puffed 
up” (I Cor. viii. 1). . . “doth not behave itself unseemly” (I Cor. xi. passim) 
“seeketh not her own” (I Cor. x. 24), etc. I owe this note to Dr. Frame. 


178 


Panne or A Cdn Veli Yu An iaete PE bs (7.6 


with him to the conclusion that they should remain “steadfast, 
unmovable, always abiding in the work of the Lord, for as 
much as you know your labour is not in vain of the Lord” 
(I Cor. xv. 58). 

It remains to see how the First Epistle to Corinth, aided 
by the Second, helps to reconstruct the course of Paul’s life 
during the eventful period which preceded his last journey to 
Jerusalem, 


179 


CED ARO ER, 


TH ESE C'O NiDiv ESTO SEU TR Ove is 


THoucH comparatively short, the First Epistle to the 
Corinthians is almost inexhaustible as a revelation of Pauline 
thought and character, and also of the internal condition of 
a primitive Christian community. It is now necessary to make 
use of it and also of II Corinthians in order to construct a 
description of a momentous period in the Apostle’s career: 

All the information concerning it given in Acts is confined 
to a few words: 


“And when the tumult (at Ephesus) was over, Paul 
sent for the disciples, and, after he had encouraged them, 
he said farewell and went forth to Macedonia. And 
having made his way through those districts and having 
encouraged them with many words, he came to Greece. 
And after spending three months there, as the Jews 
formed a plot against him when ke proposed to put 
to sea for Syria, he decided to travel by way of Mace- 
Conia Mus cts xxi 395 


The story of these eventful months has to be pieced together 
from what St. Paul tells us in the two Epistles to the Corin- 
thians and in his letter to the Romans, 

According to Acts xix. 21, Paul had made up his mind to 
leave Ephesus before the tumult in the theatre occurred. His 
plan was to go by way of Macedonia to Achaia and then to 
visit Jerusalem, after which he declared, “I must see Rome.” 
Accordingly, he sent Timothy to Corinth (Acts xix. 21-22). 
The clue to the meaning of this is found in I Corinthians. 

180 


oer on OND DS I tele On et R’O) PE 


The reports he had received from time to time of the 
state of the Church at Corinth had made him anxious to go 
back in person; but he was unwilling, owing to his affection 
for his converts, to visit them as a stern reprover of their 
shortcomings. For Paul was evidently an affectionate man 
with a genius for friendship. Possessed of unusual powers 
of sarcasm,—what can be more biting than his remark that the 
Corinthians appear to be sitting in the theatre like emperors 
and kings watching the Apostles suffer as criminals condemned 
to death (I Cor. iv. 6-13)?—-he cannot refrain from endear- 
ing words in the midst of his sternest rebukes. “I do not 
write these things to put you to shame, but to warn you as 
my dear children, for if you have ten thousand schoolmasters 
in Christ, you have not many fathers, for through the Gospel 
J am your father in Christ” (I Cor. iv. 14-15; cf. Gal. iv. 
19-20). Paul, in fact, possessed the pastoral, as contrasted with 
the hierarchical spirit, and could not bear the thought of visit- 
ing Corinth with the rod of a pedagogue. Apollos, probably 
like him in this respect, had left Corinth rather than encour- 
age the converts in their factions, and despite Paul’s entreaties 
he declined to go back till things were better (I Cor. xvi. 12). 

Flaving, however, sent Timothy to Corinth, Paul decided 
to go there, not as he had originally intended directly by sea, 
but by way of Macedonia waiting at Ephesus till after Pente- 
costa CliGor, xvi. /5=0.).7 

The reason for thus planning his travels was the collection 
for “the poor saints at Jerusalem,” to which the rest of his 
active life was largely devoted—for the journey to Jerusalem, 
which terminated in his arrest, was for the purpose of bringing 
the contribution of his Gentile converts thither (Acts xxiv. 
17). How important a matter it was in the eyes of the 
Apostle is seen in his allusions to it in his correspondence. 
He had given injunctions from Ephesus to Galatia, to urge 


1 According to Acts xix. 22, Paul sent Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia. 
In I Cor. xvi. 10, Paul apparently thinks Timothy may go to Corinth “If Timothy 
come.” The Apostle’s change of plan is mentioned in II Cor. i. 16. It was evi- 
dently a time of much perplexity and doubt. 


I8t 


> AW Neirehea Wale 


the duty of contributing liberally (I Cor. xvi. 1; cf. Gal. ii. 
10, Vi. 7-10, assuming the later date of the Galatian letter). 

He exhorts the Corinthians to contribute weekly to this ob- 
ject (I Cor. xvi. 1-4) and to send delegates to take the money 
to Jerusalem. The whole of the eighth and ninth chapters 
of II Corinthians deals with the collection and the liberality 
of the Macedonians as contrasted with the reluctance of the 
wealthier Greeks of Corinth. Writing to the Romans, Paul 
alludes quite casually to this collection, showing how deeply 
interested he was in its proving successful (Rom. xv. 25-29). 

It has been necessary to lay so much stress on this solicitude 
for the Church of Jerusalem, because it reveals the Apostle’s 
anxiety, at the cost of infinite trouble, and even of personal 
inconvenience, to stand well with the Mother Church. When 
it was a matter of principle, Paul was inflexible, and he could 
speak severely of the attitude of some of the original dis- 
ciples. But, if charity and sympathy were demanded, these 
were never withheld. Paul’s independent attitude towards 
other Christians has been frequently misrepresented; for he 
had nothing of the spirit of a schismatic in his composition. 
On the contrary, he did all in his power, consistent with his 
convictions as to the supremacy of Christ over the Law and 
the liberty of the Gentiles, to maintain the unity of the Church 
and to prevent a breach between its Judaic and Hellenic 
branches. 

From the perusal of Acts it would not be easy to realise all 
the hardships endured by Paul in the furtherance of his 
mission or the nature of the opposition he encountered. These 
are brought into strong relief in the two Epistles to the Cor- 
inthians. From Acts we might gather that, except for the 
tumult aroused by Demetrius, the sojourn at Ephesus was 
comparatively peaceful; but when writing from there to 
Corinth Paul says, “To this very hour we hunger and thirst, 
and are in lack of clothes. We are incessantly working with 
our own hands” (I Cor. iv. 11-12). Whatever he means by 
“fishting with the beasts at Ephesus” (I Cor. xv. 32), the 
Apostle lived in daily peril. Once, he tells the Corinthians, 

182 


Sebi s BC ON De Vv TS Lele On UR. OPE 


he absolutely despaired of his life and regarded it a miracle 
that he ever escaped (II Cor. i. 8-10). 

But Paul’s greatest trials were not the discomforts, calami- 
ties and perils which he endured with so much fortitude—not 
his beatings and scourgings, his three shipwrecks, his night 
and day adrift on the sea. What caused him the keenest sor- 
row was the fickleness of his beloved converts and the ma- 
lignity of those who ought to have been his friends. The 
Corinthians were a special cause of anxiety: they desired his 
presence, and yet dreaded his coming. The faction leaders 
boasted that Paul would never come and exulted in the belief 
that his frequent changes of plan were a proof that he was 
afraid to do so (I Cor. iv. 19; cf. II Cor. i. 16-24). 

This is the main theme of the second letter to the Corin- 
thians, if indeed it is really a single letter. Before, however, 
attempting to explain its contents it is desirable to outline the 
probable course of the correspondence which passed between 
the Apostle and the Corinthian Church. From the hints he 
lets fall about letters sent and received, it is evident that 
only fragments of his writings have survived, and that it was 
his practice to be constantly in touch with his converts after 
he had established a church in any city visited by him. 

As has been already indicated, Paul whilst at Ephesus main- 
tained an uninterrupted intercourse with his converts at Cor- 
inth. The so-called “First Epistle” was a reply to a letter 
addressed to the Apostle by the Corinthians (I Cor. vii. 1). 
Fife had apparently already sent the church a letter (I Cor. v. 

He was informed of events at Corinth by the “household” 
of Chloe (I Cor. i. 11). He had evidently seen Apollos, who 
had visited Corinth (Acts xix. 1), and begged him to go back 
(I Cor. xvi. 12). Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, three 
well-known Corinthian Christians, had visited Paul at Ephesus 
Gi@ortxvii/17). | 

But the Second Epistle is far more perplexing than the 
First, which is clearer in its statements and more easy to 
analyze, whereas the Second was written at a time when the 
Apostle was under far stronger feelings of emotion owing 

183 


SrA NOS RA ass 


to the many difficulties which he encountered after leaving 
Ephesus. Paul had been compelled repeatedly to alter his 
plans and had incurred not a little misrepresentation in con- 
sequence. He had evidently written about his proposed visits, 
and the Corinthians had tried to read between the lines and 
to discover what motives underlay his correspondence (II Cor. 
i. 13-14). His reason for not visiting their city was to avoid 
“coming in sorrow”; and as the word “again” occurs it is 
possible Paul had paid an unrecorded visit to Greece during 
his stay at Ephesus. In another_place he says that his projected 
visit to Corinth would be his “third” (II Cor. xiii. 1). He 
implies that he had written several letters to the Corinthians 
when he tells them that his enemies acknowledged his let- 
ters to be powerful, though they declared that when he ap- 
peared he was not much to look at and had nothing worth 
saying “his bodily presence is weak and his speech con- 
feniptiblenaill (GCarixnio): 

The fact that several letters were written, and only two or 
three at most were preserved, proves how much we are in 
the dark as regards this part of the life of Paul; and a further 
example of this is the stress laid by him on the mission of 
Titus, who is not so much as mentioned in Acts. From the 
allusion to him in the Epistle to the Galatians that, as a 
Greek he was not compelled to be circumcised (Gal. ii. 1-3), 
and that he and Barnabas accompanied Paul to Jerusalem, 
as well as the important part he evidently took in reference 
to Corinth, Titus must have been one of Paul’s chief coad- 
jutors, yet we should have known nothing of his presence 
at this time but for the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. 
What has been said is enough to show how difficult it is to 
piece together the scanty information we have of this visit 
to Europe, and to construct a consistent narrative out of this 
letter to Corinth. 

Some one had shown himself to be a bitter and unscrupulous 
enemy of Paul. The common notion that this was the man 
who had married his father’s wife (I Cor. v. 1) seems hardly 
probable; for the offence in II Corinthians appears to have 

184 


figkaategi ee Ci), NL De Sh Ts ie Ovtectt, RO). P 


been personal as regards the Apostle, and not a direct sin 
against God. The Corinthians on receipt of a letter from 
Paul had recognized the injustice done to him, and had cut 
off from communion the man who had traduced him. Not 
only so, but the guilty person had accepted the sentence of 
the majority with a due sense of the wrong he had done; and 
Paul, pleased by this proof of the love borne him by the 
Corinthians, and touched by the man’s repentance, says he 
has forgiven his enemy and declares that having been suf- 
ficiently punished he ought to be restored to his place in the 
Church’ (11 Cor, 11. 5-12): 

Titus had been sent from Ephesus to Corinth to put mat- 
ters right, and Paul was so anxious for a report from him that 
although he found a great opportunity for spreading the 
Gospel at Troas, he could not endure the suspense, but has- 
tened to Macedonia in order to meet Titus. This reveals a 
very human side of the Apostle’s character, since even his 
burning zeal to diffuse the Gospel yielded for a time to his 
anxiety to ascertain the real condition of affairs in the dis- 
tracted Church of Corinth (II Cor. ii. 12-17). In-the long 
section which follows there is no mention whatever of Titus. 
Paul feels the imputations on his conduct so bitterly that he 
enters upon a defence of his attitude to the Corinthians. 
Among other things his right to preach Christ had been hotly 
disputed, and it was declared that he had come to Corinth 
without any official recognition by the leaders of the Church. 
He could not even produce a letter of introduction authoriz- 
ing the Jews or Christians at Corinth to receive him. This 
evidently touched Paul’s most sensitive feelings. To be 
treated by the Church which he himself founded, as well as 
having been the first preacher of the Gospel to visit their city, 
as if he were a stranger needing an introduction, was insup- 
portable and the more so because he had spent well-nigh two 
years labouring at Corinth. Thus, the keynote of the third 
to the seventh chapter appears to be introduction (sustatikat 
epistolat) or introducing (sunistanein). 

“To we need to imtroduce ourselves, do we need letters of 

185 


SALINE Leia G0) oft 


mtroduction to you or from you? You are our letter in- 
scribed in our hearts known and read by all men. You are a 
letter of Christ written by our ministry, written not in ink 
but in the Spirit of the Living God” (II Cor. iii. 1-3). 

Paul then goes on to say that the ministry of the Spirit is 
not literal but spiritual. As such it is not veiled and obscure 
but open to all. “This,” he continues, “is our ministry by 
which we introduce ourselves to the conscience of every man. 
All is open and above board; for we do not proclaim ourselves, 
but Jesus Christ” (II Cor. iv..5). 

This leads him on to speak of his own weakness as a man, 
and the sublimity of his message to the world. It is a treasure 
in an earthen vessel, which is being renewed day by day. 
“Our light affliction of the moment is working out an exceed- 
ing weight of glory.” But whether in or out of the body 
Paul strives to please God, for all must stand before Christ’s 
judgement seat to give account for the good or evil done 
through the body (II Cor. v. 6-10). 

Paul now returns to the subject of introduction which 
touched him so acutely. He will not again introduce him- 
self: he will not do more than give the Corinthians some 
answer to those whose boast is in appearance rather than in the 
heart. But, so powerfully “does the love of Christ con- 
strain” Paul, that he will acknowledge no one in the flesh, even 
Christ. By this he appears to mean that now Christ is glori- 
fied all the past is over, there is a new creation in Christ Who 
has reconciled us to God. ‘Now, therefore, is the accepted 
time, now is the day of salvation” and for this reason we 
will only, he says, introduce ourselves to you as the ministers 
of Christ, “in our patience, in our afflictions . . . in our suf- 
ferings, in our toils in long suffering . . . in the holy spirit 
in our unfeigned love . . . as deceivers, yet true, as unknown 
yet well known, as dying and as we live . . . as poor yet mak- 
ing many rich. . . as having nothing yet possessing all things” 
(II Cor. vi. 1-10). Then follows a characteristically beau- 
tiful appeal to the Corinthians, in which he abandons the argu- 
ment and sequence of his letter, and begs his converts not to 

186 


er Ee eC ON I Da Vt Se le One WU) RO oP E 


shrink from him but to open their hearts to him, as he does 
to them. “Our mouth is open to you Corinthians, our heart is 
opened wide. We are not keeping back from you but you from 
us. Pay us back and open your hearts to us” (II Cor. vi. 11ff 
and see vii. 2ff.). The section of the letter closes with the com- 
fort derived from the reception of Titus at Corinth and his 
arrival in Macedonia to meet Paul (II Cor. vil. 13-16). 

This brings the Apostle to the subject he has so much 
at heart, to which it has been necessary constantly to allude, 
and he pleads earnestly for the poor of Jerusalem. He places 
the matter before the Corinthians with much delicacy, re- 
minding them gently of the superior liberality of the poorer 
churches of Macedonia. They, at least, had not to be asked 
to subscribe; but, poor as they were, they begged for the favour 
of being allowed to do so (II Cor. vii. 3-4), and this has 
emboldened him to ask Titus to invite the Corinthians to fol- 
low their example. The principles on which a Christian’s 
charitable contribution ought to be based are clearly defined. 
In I Corinthians xvi Paul declares that it should be sys- 
tematic and regular, made every week and not by any sud- 
den effort. The offerings should be proportioned to the 
means of each man, and not.depend on the liberality of the 
few. Every one should give as his heart prompts him, “God 
loveth a cheerful giver” (II Cor. vii. 11, ix. 7). Paul had 
already told the Corinthians that they must be ready with 
the money before he came and that he had no desire to handle 
it himself. The whole business of the collection, however, 
is of interest to us because in his treatment of it the Apostle 
reveals so many sides of his character. Active and energetic 
himself, he can hardly be supposed to have fully sympathized 
with the pious indolence of those who remained to worship at 
other people’s expense under the shadow of the Temple. He 
must’ have known that Jerusalem was the centre of a Judaic 
Christianity, which looked on him with constant suspicion. 
His sensitive nature shrank from the task of importunating his 
converts, and a noble pride made him devote days to probably 
uncongenial manual labour, in order to live independent of 

187 


SAINT PAUL 


their generosity. Here as in other apparently trifling matters 
we see the inherent greatness of the character of St. Paul. 

As it now stands the remainder of the Second Epistle to 
the Corinthians (x-xiii) appears to have little to do with the 
first part and may be taken from another letter, though at the 
end of the tenth chapter Paul again harps on the word imtro- 
ductory which had caused him so much pain. “The man who 
is approved is not he who commends (or introduces) himself 
but he whom God commends.” 

The section is a vindication of himself against his many 
traducers who claim that they are the real Apostles of Christ, 
whereas he is but an interloper. It is in many respects a 
masterpiece of eloquence, full of biting satire mingled with 
fervour and at the same time with strong underlying pathos. 

Underlying all is an apology for what Paul calls his “folly” 
(II Cor. xi. 1). He is compelled for the sake of his con- 
verts to dwell on the greatness of his labours and achievements, 
though he does so with reluctance. He speaks of his determi- 
nation to accept nothing for himself from the Corinthians, 
and he preferred to let the poor Macedonians contribute to 
his needs. “TI robbed other churches” he says, and elsewhere, 
“I made you inferior to others by accepting their bounty. 
I ask you ‘Forgive me this wrong’ ” (II Cor. xi. 7-11, xii. 13). 
He recounts his sufferings for the Gospel, his visions, his 
having been caught up to the third heaven where he “heard 
unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter.” 
And then he goes on to speak of that mysterious affliction 
which he calls his “thorn in the flesh,” sent, he supposes, to 
prevent his being overexalted by his spiritual privileges, and 
to prove God’s “strength made perfect in weakness” (II 
Cor, xii. 1-9). 

The great difficulty in making an outline of the Second 
Epistle as compared with the First is in itself of value, as it 
shows something of the trials and difficulties encountered by 
Paul in this, his last visit to Macedonia and Greece, the relent- 
less bitterness with which his enemies pursued him, the mis- 
representations to which he was exposed, the anxieties which 

188 


PWESE COND) VISTT/TO7 EUR ORB 


the “care of all the Churches brought upon him.” If in 
places this letter, or collection of letters, appears to be inco- 
herent, the language reveals to us here perhaps more than 
anywhere else the human weakness and the divine strength of 
the Apostle of the Gentiles. 


189 


CHA PT PRG I 
PAUL AND THE ROMAN CHRISTIANS 


Tue letter to the Romans, written when Paul was leaving 
Corinth for the second time on his way to Jerusalem (Rom. 
xv. 25), is full of difficult questions, theological and otherwise. 
Here we confine ourselves to but one, namely, the possible re- 
lation of Paul at this time to the Christian community at Rome. 
Before doing so it is desirable to place the problem briefly, 
but as clearly as possible, before the reader. 

We must inquire whether the epistle is a personal one, like the 
two to the Corinthians and Galatians, addressed to a particu- 
lar Christian body. Or was it, not so much a letter, as a 
treatise on the relationship of the Jews and Gentiles who had 
accepted the Gospel? In other words, did Paul write to the 
individual Churches of Galatia a letter on this burning ques- 
tion, and then put his arguments into a treatise to be sent to 
the Christian communities generally, the one sent to Rome 
being accepted at a later time as addressed to that particular 
Church? 

The eleventh chapter ends with these words: “Because 
from Him, and through Him and in Him are all things; to 
Him be the glory for ever, Amen.” This doxology may well 
be the conclusion of a letter, especially as in xii. 1 the theme 
is changed and becomes a discourse on Christian conduct and 
morality, ending with xv. 13: “Now may the God of hope 
fill you with all peace and joy in believing, that ye may 
abound in hope in the power of the Holy Ghost,” another 
suitable conclusion. Then there follow some personal remarks 
about the Apostle’s future plans and an allusion to the col- 
lection for Jerusalem contributed by Macedonia and Achaia. 
This ends xv. 33: “And the God of peace be with you all, 

190 


fee AN Ds He eR OM ANG CHRTS TEA NS 


Amen.” ‘The sixteenth chapter consists of salutations of cer- 
tain persons, concluding thus: “The grace of our Lord Jesus 
be with you,” xvi. 20, and followed by messages from St. 
Paul’s companions to the church addressed. The Epistle as 
we now have it ends with a longer doxology (xvi. 25-27). 

It is consequently possible to surmise that a number of 
paragraphs were added at different times and that the Epistle 
to the Romans was a treatise with these supplements placed at 
the end of the original salutations. It has even been sug- 
gested that the salutations were addressed to Ephesus, where 
Paul had many friends, and, not to Rome where he was per- 
sonally unknown. There is also a doubt whether at the be- 
ginning the words “In Rome” originally existed, and per- 
haps a blank was (i. 7) left and the name of the particular 
church to which each copy was sent inserted. 

Such then is the case against the original form of the letter 
being as it now is. Our task must be to see whether there 
is reason to suppose that at the time assigned to the letter 
Paul had sufficient acquaintance with the Christians at Rome 
to send a long list of personal salutations to its members. 

We learn from Acts that Priscilla and Aquila had come 
from Rome to Corinth, and had entered into close relations 
with Paul, that they had accompanied him to Ephesus, re- 
mained there for some time, and, according to the Epistle to 
the Romans, returned later to Rome (Acts xviii. 2; I Cor. 
xvi. 19; Rom. xvi. 3). But, as is evident from the list of 
those who accompanied him on his final journey to Jerusalem 
(Acts xx. 4), as well as from his Epistles, Paul had a large 
number of fellow workers, and when he was at Ephesus, he 
was evidently no solitary preacher, but the head of a body of 
missionaries, whom he was sending forth as evangelists. It is 
natural to suppose that by means of these he was in constant 
touch with Rome, which he earnestly desired to visit in 
person. He was prevented from doing so because, as he says, 
he was engaged in a very extensive missionary campaign in the 
Balkan peninsula and had gone as a pioneer of Christianity 
to the confines of the province of Ilyricum which was bounded 


I9I 


SAY Ne FAY ies 


by the Adriatic (Rom. xv. 19). He was not able to go further 
westward on account of his determination to go to Jeru- 
salem with the contribution of his Churches. At Corinth, 
however, he may have been in constant communication with 
Rome and have had many friends and colleagues in the im- 
perial city. If so, the salutations in Romans xvi are quite 
applicable.* 

That there was, and had long been, a Christian church 
there 1s tolerably certain. The Jewish colony had made its 
appearance more than a century earlier, for Cicero in his 
defence of Flaccus the Proconsul of Asia had told the Senate, 
perhaps rhetorically, that he had to speak softly for fear of 
offending the Jews in the city; and the Herodian family had 
long lived there on intimate terms with the imperial family. 
That by a. p. 57, the date of the Epistle, a Christian church 
should not have been firmly established is almost incredible; 
and, as has been suggested, Priscilla and Aquila may well have 
entered the service of Christ before they met Paul at Corinth. 
It is permissible to question, but not to ignore, the early 
tradition of the Church that Peter was for twenty-five years 
“bishop” of Rome, which cannot mean that he remained there 
all the time but that he had been the actual founder of the 
Church during his missionary travels. If so he must have 
gone there at an early date. The omission of the name of 
Peter in the Epistle to the Romans presents a serious diffi- 
culty: but this does not disprove the antiquity of the Church 
of Rome. 

Nor does the Epistle itself when examined prove to be a 
theological disquisition. It rather bears the appearance of a 
letter written to meet the actual needs of a particular church, 
with which the writer was well acquainted at least by hearsay. 

Even if the words “In Rome” were omitted (see Rom. i. 7) 
what follows would have a decidedly insincere air in a circular 


1 Dr. Lake, Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, is of the opinion that the salutations 
were addressed to Ephesus where the Apostle was well known, and this is 
held by most modern scholars. I think, however, something should be said 
in favour of the traditional view. 


192 


ela AIN Dos Hein R OM ANG CHR US TANS 


letter. Paul thanks God that the faith of his correspondents 
is spoken of throughout the world, that he is constantly pray- 
ing God that he may visit them and give them some gift of 
the Spirit, that he and they may prove a support to one another 
by their mutual faith, and that he often intended to come to 
them but hitherto had been hindered (Rom. i. 8-13). Be- 
sides his, the objections he quotes and answers when he explains 
his views would be far more genuine and natural, if they were 
actually raised by some Christians of Rome, and were not 
imaginary criticisms, the invention of the Apostle, set up by 
him in order that they might be overcome. If the questions 
are spontaneous, and the difficulties were actually experienced, 
they throw much light on the earliest Roman Christianity.’ 

The Epistle to the Romans is St. Paul’s most important 
contribution to Christian thought and to the theological mean- 
ing of the work of Christ. This aspect of the letter requires 
a detailed survey; and, now we are dealing with the life of 
Paul rather than with his opinions, it is advisable to restrict 
ourselves to questions (1) as to the light thrown by the letter 
on Paul’s movements, and (2) the general conditions of con- 
temporary Christian life at Rome. 

(1) The tragedy which underlies Paul’s projects at this 
time is that they were made when at the very height of his 
success aS a missionary to the world. After all his unex- 
ampled labours and sufferings, which he had described with so 
much eloquence in the Corinthian correspondence, he appeared 
to be on the verge of a complete triumph. As he wrote from 
Cenchrezx, the eastern port of Corinth where he was waiting 
for a ship to take him toward Jerusalem with a contribution 
sufficient to prove his affection and to remove the suspicions 
of the Mother Church, he could with justice contemplate the 
success he had been able to achieve. He had himself preached 
Christ in Asia, one of the richest and most populous provinces 
in the Roman world, so that men could say “This Paul has 
throughout almost the whole of Asia persuaded a mighty 
multitude” (Acts xix. 26). He had so far won the friendship 

2Such questions, I mean, as in Rom. iii. 1; ili. 9; iv. 1; vi. 1. 


193 


SLAIN Gg hPa wie 


of the heathen that he had the support of the representatives 
of the cities which contributed to their sacred games at 
Ephesus. He had founded a Church in the Troad, which 
already promised to be a great door for the introduction of the 
Gospel (II Cor. ii. 12). The success of Paul’s unrecorded 
labours in Macedonia and Achaia must have been even greater 
than on the Western shores of Asia Minor. It has been 
shown what loyalty he had found in Philippi and Thessalonica, 
and with what intelligence his message had been received in 
Corinth, and he was able to tell the Romans how extensively 
he had proved himself a pioneer of the Gospel “as far as 
Illyricum,” in addition to which he had gathered together a 
devoted band of followers who continued his labours in his 
absence. And now, having won success in two of the Medi- 
terranean peninsulas, he was ready to push his conquests into 
the remaining two, Italy and Spain (Rom. xv. 24). Yet 
whilst he is making these far-reaching plans Paul evidently 
feels that this journey to Jerusalem may lead to his death; 
for he begs his correspondents to pray for him “That I may 
be delivered from the unbelievers in Judea.” This renders 
the description of Paul’s journey to Jerusalem in Acts as one 
of the most pathetic stories in the New Testament, leading 
up to the tragic conclusion of his arrest and imprisonment. 

(2) The condition of the Roman Church at the time as 
revealed in the Epistle must be our next consideration. In 
the purely doctrinal portion (Rom. i-xi) Paul is writing as 
though he were teaching in a Rabbinical school, interrupted 
here and there by his disciples with questions which may 
disclose the character of Judaism in Rome. Paul begins his 
doctrinal argument by declaring that the wrath of God is now 
being manifested against all the iniquity of man. First he ex- 
poses the guilt and impurity of the Gentile world, and shows 
that, despite the fact that it had no direct revelation from God, 
it had deliberately gone astray by violating the law of Nature, 
which plainly testified to His power and goodness (Rom. i. 
18-19). 

Having demonstrated the justice of God towards the Gen- 

194 


PAUL AND THE ROMAN CHRISTIANS 


tile sinners, the Apostle turns to the Jews. They have the 
Law, they know what God wants; but, though they boast 
that they can teach other men, they are inconsistent in their 
own lives. As the prophets say “The name of God is blas- 
phemed among the Gentiles on their account” (Rom. ii. 
17-29, verse 24 quoting Isaiah li. 5). 

The Jews are then supposed to raise a series of objections. 
“How is the Jew then more privileged than the Gentile?” 
“If our injustice serves to bring out God’s righteousness, is 
not God unjust in visiting us with his displeasure? If God 
is proved true by proving me a liar, why should he judge me? 
If it is as you say, it amounts to this: we ought to do evil 
that good may come of it” (Rom. iii. 1-8). 

Of course Paul may have raised these questions himself in 
order to answer them, but he may also be supposed to be re- 
plying to objections he knew the Jews, and even the Jewish 
Christians, were advancing against his teaching. They are 
continued till we come to the eighth chapter, in which Paul 
arrives at the conclusion that “There is no condemnation for 
those who are in Christ Jesus” and his eloquent description 
of life under the spirit which makes us call on God as “Abba, 
Father.” It is hard to imagine that Paul would have invented 
such a series of questions as appears in the first seven chapters 
of the Epistle, some of which he evidently finds difficult to 
answer, if he did not know that his correspondents were 
asking them. For their criticisms amount to a charge that he, 
Paul, who evidently was deeply concerned with the morals of 
his converts, was by his attitude towards the Law striking at 
the root of all morality. It seems more natural to suppose that 
he already knew of the objections which were being made to 
his teaching, than that he suggested them to the Roman com- 
munity. 

In the ninth and tenth chapters Paul reveals his love for his 
nation and rises to a sublime height of pathetic eloquence 
in pleading that they might accept the salvation offered by 
Jesus. That they have not done so already is so amazing 
to him that he finds an explanation only in the hidden pur- 


195, 


SAIL NM AREAS nTy 


pose of God, by which some are rejected and only a few 
accepted and saved. He considers that this is what the 
prophets refer to when they speak of the “remnant of Israel” 
being saved (Rom. ix. 27). It is on these chapters that the 
disputed doctrines of election, reprobation, and predestination, 
which have so deeply agitated the Christianity of the West, 
are mainly based. Here, however, our interest lies in dis- 
covering the nature of the Apostle’s approach to his country- 
men at this period. He strives with all his might to arouse 
them to a sense of the privileges which are slipping from 
their grasp. “My heart’s desire and my prayer to God,” writes 
the Apostle, “is that they (the Jews) may be saved, for I tes- 
tify that they are zealous for God but without knowledge” 
(Rom. ix. 1-3, x. 1-2). Paul does not overlook the merits of 
Judaism and its superiority to all other religions. Nor does 
he allow himself to forget that he is Jewish to the core. “I 
have ceaseless sorrow in my heart for my brethren of Israel, 
my natural kinsmen, and for the sake of my brothers I would 
myself be cut off as accursed from Christ” (ix. 1-3). As 
compared with the Gentiles the Jews have every advan- 
tage; they belong to the true Israel, they enjoy the glory 
of God, and the adoption as His sons: the Law, the privilege 
of serving God, the covenants made to the fathers, the prom- 
ises all belong to them. Paul cannot believe that God has re- 
jected His people; for he himself is a son of Abraham, of 
the tribe of Benjamin (Rom. xi. 1). It is true that the 
majority of Israel has proved hard-hearted and has rejected 
the Gospel. Perhaps this has happened in order that the 
Gentiles too may be saved. But if the loss of Israel is to the 
advantage of the outside world, Paul cannot believe that it is 
irremediable. A day will come when the Gentiles will have 
contributed their quota, and then will come the salvation of 
all Israel. This will be gain indeed to the Gentiles—nay it 
will be truly a “life from the dead” (Rom. xi. 11-31). 

The vigour with which Paul here expresses himself, his pas- 
sionate love for his own people, his sorrow at their rejection 
of His Master, amply accounts for the fact that, for all his zeal 

196 


Pat DAN Di DH ROMAN. GHRISTIANS 


for his Gentile converts, he never could keep entirely away 
from Jerusalem. But there were also Gentile converts at 
Rome, to whom Paul addresses warning. He is always on the 
watch against what he calls “glorying” or “boasting” (kau- 
hésis). When he is compelled to speak of himself and the 
work he has accomplished or the special privileges vouchsafed 
to him, he does so with an apology. For he received that 
“boasting” was a great danger to nascent Christianity. The 
original disciples “gloried” over Paul because they had known 
Christ when on earth: The Jewish gloried over the Gentile 
converts, because they had been born inheritors of the blessings 
of the Messianic age. At Rome it would appear that the 
Gentile Christians had begun to “glory” over their Jewish 
brethren, because it seemed to them that God was rejecting His 
People in favour of themselves. Paul is fully alive to the peril 
of this self-glorification, and by the allegory of the olive tree 
and the branches grafted on to it, he shows that the Gentiles 
may lose the privileges they enjoy by unduly presuming on the 
favour God has shown them (Rom. xi. 13-24). 

In the moral precepts towards the end of the letter he deals 
with problems applicable to what is known of Judaism in 
Rome. Paul gives a beautiful sketch of what the character 
of a true follower of Jesus should be. He adds to this an 
exhortation peculiarly necessary if a Roman community 1s 
addressed. The Jewish population in the city was large and 
turbulent. It has been estimated that their quarters, mostly 
in the poor districts, may have contained as many as thirty 
thousand persons. They enjoyed great legal privileges and 
immunities; some of them were admitted to confidence and 
even intimacy with the aristocracy, but the majority were 
regarded with disfavour by the people, and considered a 
nuisance by the responsible government. Josephus, Tacitus, 
and Suetonius agree that they were a troublsome element 
of the population; and, if Paul had information of what was 
going on in Rome, his warning that the Christians must obey 
the civil authorities is singularly applicable. It was not that 
Paul ordered submission to the tyranny of a Nero, as later 


197 


SALINE coh 


advocates of “non-resistance” maintained; since he was 
writing during that Emperor’s guinquennium, when the gov- 
ernment was exceptionally good, and he specially cautions 
the converts to abstain, not only from sedition, but from actual 
crime (Rom. xiii. 1-7). 

Finally Paul deals with the vexed question, which had dis- 
tracted Corinth as to what Christians ought to do in the matter 
of eating such food as would cause offence to the scrupulous 
whether they were of Jewish or Gentile birth. Here he dis- 
plays the same noble tolerance and wisdom as he does in I 
Corinthians, raising this really unimportant matter to the level 
of the inculcation of the deepest principle of Christian conduct. 
“Tet us not judge one another: make this the basis of your 
judgement, never to cause offence to one who is your brother. 
I know and am persuaded in the Lord that nothing is of itself 
unclean; but if one thinks anything to be so, it is unclean to 
him. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are 
no more walking in love. Do not destroy the faith of a man 
by what you choose to eat. He is after all a brother for whom 
Christ died. The kingdom of God is not food and drink; it 
is righteousness and peace, etc.” (Rom. xiv. 13-23). 

To whomsoever the salutations in Romans xvi may be 
addressed, they are of great significance and worth all the 
attention scholars have bestowed on them. They prove in the 
first place that Paul’s Epistles were not addressed to the 
people of the lower order but to what we should term the 
upper middle class. To none but an educated constituency 
could a letter like Romans have appealed. The many women 
mentioned must have been, mostly like Lydia and Chloe, 
heads of considerable households. The slaves or freedmen 
of the familia of Narcissus and Aristobulus may well have 
been the people who managed the affairs of opulent nobles. 
But the number of Paul’s relations mentioned is very signifi- 
cant. Andronicus and Junias, we learn, were “kinsmen,” fel- 
low labourers and fellow sufferers in prison, who had embraced 
Christianity before Paul, and were known as eminent apostles. 
Thus Paul incidentally reveals the fact that the Gospel num- 

198 


PAUL AND THE ROMAN CHRISTIANS 


bered members of his own family among its first adherents. 
Another “kinsman” named is Herodion, otherwise unknown 
to us. And not only so, but among Paul’s companions when 
he wrote the Epistle were three more of relatives, Lucius, 
Jason, and Sosipater. From Acts we learn that his nephew 
lived at Jerusalem. From this it is evident that the Apostle 
Paul, so far from being alone, was a member of a large and 
widely dispersed family, some of whom were his enthusiastic 
fellow labourers in the diffusion of the Gospel, and that, even 
when a persecutor, he had two distinguished apostles of Christ 
among his kinsmen. 


199 


CHUAIP spb Rages ayaa) 


PIAGU LG O; BE Sat O Mee Saab 


WueEn Paul dispatched his epistle to Rome the active work 
of his life, his great exploits as a missionary and a writer were 
practically at an end. We cannot say with certainty that he 
founded any other church, and no letter of his comparable to 
those to the Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans has been 
preserved. But for the guidance of Acts we should be com- 
pletely in the dark as to his movements. But fortunately, 
brief as it is, the section dealing with this period of the life 
of the Apostle is admittedly the first-hand testimony of one 
who was with him throughout all his adventures at the time. 

It is on the whole a melancholy story. No more mis- 
sionary successes, perils, or deliverances, no more plans for 
future conquests. Paul is scarcely ever a free man. He goes 
to Jerusalem with a growing sense of the danger he is incur- 
ring, his long journey is a series of farewells to his old 
friends. At Jerusalem he is arrested and for long years his 
life is spent, not in spreading the Gospel, but in enforced 
idleness, broken by wranglings, mostly on legal technicalities, 
with Sanhedrins or Roman provincial courts. At last, after 
bitter experience of “the law’s delay,” the Apostle embarks as 
a prisoner for Rome. Only once more do we have a glimpse 
at him as a great personality, though in custody, acting almost 
as the natural leader of the passengers and crew of a ship, 
when it went to pieces on the shore of Malta. In his Gospel 
Luke has devoted much space, from 1x. 5I—xix. 28, to the 
journey of our Lord from Galilee to Jerusalem. This sec- 
tion contains many parables of great beauty peculiar to this 
evangelist: the good Samaritan, the Lost Sheep, the Impor-. 

200 


POU i GE ss) ls Ops Re Ur An evi 


tunate Widow, as well as discourses of Jesus and sayings 
reported elsewhere in Matthew. In Acts Paul’s itinerary is 
traced with a precision impossible in the Gospel narrative 
of the last journey of Jesus to Jerusalem, as the writer of 
Acts was an eyewitness throughout. It also contains a 
report of the Apostle’s farewell address to the elders of 
Ephesus, which is more in accordance with the language and 
sentiments of the Pauline Epistles than any speech of his in 
the rest of Acts. 

After Paul had decided to leave Corinth by way of Mace- 
donia, the writer of Acts says: “Now there accompanied him 
Sopater (son of Pyrrhus) of Bercea, and of the Thessalonians, 
Aristarchus and Secundus, and Gaius of Derbe and Timothy, 
and Tychicus and Trophimus from (the province of) Asia. 
These came to Troas and waited for us; and we sailed after the 
days of unleavened bread from Philippi and came to Troas in 
five days, where we stayed seven days” (Acts xx. 4ff.). 

The varieties of readings in this passage are perplexing but 
the sense is tolerably clear. The companions of Paul, who had 
agreed to meet him at Troas, were evidently the delegates from 
the churches which contributed to the aid of the Christians 
at Jerusalem, and this appears incidentally in Acts xxi. 29, 
where the explanation of the accusation that Paul had brought 
heathen into the Temple is that Trophimus, an Ephesian, 
had been seen in his company in the city. The rendez- 
vous was chosen in order that the delegates from Macedonia 
might meet with those from Asia Minor and all travel together 
to Syria. Paul’s company consisted probably of the Corinthian 
and Philippian representatives, and among them was the writer 
of this section, as the abrupt appearance of the first person 
plural indicates. Timothy had probably gone to collect funds 
from his native Lystra, and had returned, accompanied by 
Gaius, from the neighbouring city of Derbe; and the whole 
delegation had chartered a ship to take them on their way to 
Palestine. 

The final gathering at Troas was at a meeting of the Church 
in an upper room, where we witness the scene of the earliest 

201 


SASSI Die ASL 


Eucharistic service described in Christian literature. The Sab- 
bath was over when the believers met for the purpose of break- 
ing bread. Like most later services, this was held at night. 
The room was lighted by many lamps, and apparently 
crowded, as a boy seated in one of the windows was over- 
come by sleep and fell from the top of the house insensible, 
and to all appearances dead. Paul assured the congregation 
that the lad was still alive, and having embraced him, went 
back to the upper room and continued his discourse until 
dawn. Then they broke bread and after a simple meal, Paul 
went forth on his journey: “and they brought the child in alive 
and were greatly comforted.” The order of the narrative 
forbids us to believe that it intended to imply that Eutychus 
(for that was the boy’s name) had actually died from his 
fall. It does not appear from it that he was brought into 
the room till Paul had departed (Acts xx. 7-12). 

The author of Acts gives the stages of Paul’s journey ac- 
curately but without comment, till the ship, having touched at 
Assos, Mitylene, Chios, and Samos, and according to some 
manuscripts at Trogyllium, came to Miletus,—Paul having 
decided not to go to Ephesus because he was anxious to reach 
Jerusalem before Pentecost. 

At Miletus the Apostle made an affecting farewell to the 
elders of the Church of Ephesus, whom he had summoned 
to meet him. | 

First he reminded his hearers of his long service of the Lord 
at Ephesus, his lowliness of mind, his tears and his trials 
owing to the constant plots of the Jews against him. Not con- 
tent with public preaching he had gone from house to house 
bearing witness alike to Jews and heathen of the need of 
repentance towards God, and faith in Jesus as their Lord 
Oxxiur7—2.1)), 

“And now, I go, led as it were in bonds by the Spirit, to 
Jerusalem. I know not what awaits me; but in every city I 
go to the Spirit warns me to expect imprisonment. I care 
nothing for what happens, provided I may finish my course 
and fulfil the ministry which the Lord Jesus has given me. 

202 


PAUL GOES TO JERUSALEM 


I know, however, that you, among whom I have preached the 
Kingdom, will see me no more. But I have done all I 
could, and declared God’s purpose to you” (xx. 22-27). 

Then follows a solemn warning. “Beware to guard the 
flock committed to you as its overseers (Zishops) by the Holy 
Spirit. It was purchased by the blood of God’s own Son.’ 
Evil men, veritable wolves, are going to try to devour your 
flock. Be on the watch as I have often warned you” (xx. 
28-31). The speech ends with a solemn commendation of 
the Ephesian’s elders. Let them remember how for three 
years Paul worked to maintain himself and asked for nothing; 
that is the way we should help the weak. All is summed up 
in a saying of the Lord Jesus: “Happier it is to give than to 
receive” (xx. 32-35). 

This beautiful farewell address, full as it is of Pauline 
phrases and illustrative of the pastoral spirit of the Apostle, 
hardly represents the Paul of the Epistles. It appears, to me 
at least, to be the work of one who appreciated Paul’s char- 
acter, better than he understood his purpose. 

After taking an affectionate farewell of the Ephesian elders, 
Paul and his company continued to coast along Asia Minor till 
they came to its southwestern extremity at Patara. There 
they embarked on a merchant ship and after a prosperous 
voyage past Cyprus reached Tyre; there they stayed seven 
days and Paul was solemnly warned by the brethren to go 
to Jerusalem. The Christians took him to the shore and 
having knelt in prayer embraced him and his fellow travellers 
before they embarked. They landed for a day at Ptolemais; 
and the voyage ended at Cxsarea. There they stayed with 
Philip the Evangelist—one of the Seven (Deacons), who 
is the first missionary of the Gospel known to us, and his 
four prophetic daughters. From Agabus, who had foretold 
the famine many years before (Acts xi. 28), Paul received 
his last warning. Agabus bound his hands and feet, as an 
ancient prophet of Israel might have done, as a sign of what 

1 Or “by God’s own blood,” perhaps this was a very early reading from several 
similar Greek letters coming together. 

203 


SACDIN Pr ASU 


was to befall Paul at Jerusalem. Undismayed by the affec- 
tionate solicitations of the people of Czsarea, Paul said, “Why 
do you weep and break my heart? I am ready not only to be 
bound but to die at Jerusalem for the name of Lord Jesus.” 
They acquiesced in the solemn words, “The Lord’s will be 
done” (Acts xxi. 14). 

The Church at Jerusalem had evidently every desire to re- 
ceive honourably the delegation which was bringing the money 
of which they were in need. Mnason of Cyprus, who had 
been a disciple from the first, was at Caesarea ready to escort 
them to his house (Acts xxi. 16). They prepared for their 
journey, travelled by land along the fertile plain of Sharon 
and ascended the dreary hills, on the top of which stood the 
Holy City, with the Temple in all its glory, almost finally 
completed, and on the verge of utter destruction. 

Paul’s party received a hearty welcome from the com- 
munity at Jerusalem at the head of whom was James “the 
brother” of Jesus. None of the Twelve who had formerly di- 
rected the affairs of the ancient Church appear now. ‘The 
authorities are James and the Elders. 

James was evidently highly revered in Jerusalem and the 
circles in which he presided are described as “zealots for the 
Law,” for “zealot” was at this time a title claiming respect 
rather than the name of a sect.” The Christian Church under 
such conditions was subject to no persecution in Jerusalem, 
but rather may have been much respected as a sect who ac- 
cepted Jesus as the Messiah, but were chiefly remarkable for 
their scrupulous fulfilment of the Law. 

Nay, strange as it may seem, James may have been the 
more honoured in Jerusalem, because of his relationship to 
Jesus. Our Lord, it must be remembered, was less than a 
week in the Holy City, where He was received with enthu- 
siasm by the inhabitants as “the prophet of Galilee.” For 
some reason He incurred the hostility of the priesthood, who 
raised the cry that He intended to destroy the Temple. By 

2See Beginnings, vol. i, Appendix A, in which it is shown that the Zealots as 
a faction do not appear till the outbreak of the Jewish War. 

204. 


PAUL GOES TO JERUSALEM 


them He was arrested by night, tried before daybreak, and 
handed over to Pilate, who had Him crucified to prevent, as 
he supposed, the danger of a formidable riot. Some weeks 
later His followers openly declared that He had appeared to 
them in or near Jerusalem and in Galilee, and had been taken 
up into heaven, as Elijah had been. They formed themselves 
into a society which was favorably regarded by the people and 
even by the popular sect of the Pharisees, when they perceived 
the followers of Jesus constantly were in the Temple and 
scrupulously observing the Law. Their only persecutors were 
the High Priestly families and these, according to rabbinical 
tradition, were exceedingly unpopular because of their arro- 
gance and rapacity. When serious trouble arose it was through 
the Hellenistic Jews, who compassed the death of Stephen by 
means of the irreligious and unpopular priestly aristocracy; 
and it was not, according to Acts, till after the conversion of 
Cornelius (Acts x) that Herod Agrippa I, who had lived most 
of his life at Rome and may be considered as a Hellenistic Jew, 
executed James the brother of John, and imprisoned Peter, in 
order to gratify the priests (Acts xii. 1). From that time 
James became the leader of the believers in Jesus. 

Now James, as will be shown, was highly honoured for his 
devotion to the Law and his ascetic life, and his brother 
Jesus may well have come to be considered as a prophet who 
had fallen a victim to the priestly aristocracy and the Roman 
government, both being extremely unpopular in Jerusalem. 
Consequently the people, as is implied in the early chapters 
of Acts, may have regarded the memory of Jesus with rever- 
ence and have believed that He might reappear as the Messiah. 
It is also possible that they called Jesus “the Christ,” espe- 
cially, as has been abundantly shown, Messiah was a title 
bestowed on kings and priests ever since the days of Saul, 
and had not the tremendous import we attach to the word 
snebrist,2”)° 

Let us now see what Josephus, who was in, or in close com- 


3 Beginnings, vol. i, pp. 367ff. 
205 


S ASU NP AM ES 


munication with Jerusalem at the time of the death of James, 
has to say concerning James. 

“Now Ananus the younger, who we have said received the 
High Priesthood, was of a bold and very audacious disposition, 
and a member of the party of the Sadducees, who are the 
most cruel judges among the Jews, as we have previously 
shown. Ananus, being such a man, thought that, now 
Festus was dead, and Albinus his successor still on his way 
to Jerusalem, it was a good opportunity to assemble a Sanhed- 
rin of judges, and to bring the brother of Jesus the so-called 
Christ before it, and also some others; and having charged 
them with disobeying the Law, he condemned them to be 
stoned. But the more moderate Jews, who accurately inter- 
preted the Law, were much disgusted at this” (Antig. XX. ix. 
1). The result was that Agrippa II, with the approval of 
Albinus the new procurator, removed Ananus and put another 
in his place as High Priest. 

This surely means that the trial and condemnation of James 
was considered a crime by the strict Jews of the Pharisaic 
party. It is also noteworthy that Josephus in this chapter, the 
authenticity of which is unquestioned, says that Jesus was 
called “The Christ.” Then there is the testimony of Hege- 
sippus, a Christian writer, quoted by the historian Eusebius. 
Hegesippus wrote about a.p. 180, and, though his account 
differs from that of Josephus, it bears some signs of having 
at least a basis of probability buried under legendary accre- 
tions. 

“James is called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour 
to the present day... . He was holy from his mother’s 
womb; and he drank no wine or strong drink, neither did 
he eat flesh. .... He alone was permitted to the Holy 
Place. . . He was in the habit of going alone into the Temple 
and was frequently found upon his knees, begging forgiveness 
for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a 
camel. . . . Because of his great justice he was called the 
Just and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, ‘Bulwark of the 
people.’ . . . Some of the Seven Sects asked, ‘What is the 

206 


PAGE G OE Sixt OP PERU Sls M 


Door of Jesus?’ and he replied that he was the Saviour... 
many believed and there was a danger of all the people going 
after Christ. . . . He was asked to persuade the multitude 
not to go astray after Jesus. . . . The Scribes and Pharisees 
placed him on a pinnacle of the Temple . . . and said “Thou 
just one in whom all ought to have confidence, forasmuch 
as the people have gone astray after Jesus the Crucified, 
declare what is the Door of Jesus.’ ... Thereupon James 
declared that Jesus is seated on the right hand of the Great 
Power and will come again in the clouds. . . . Thereupon 
James was stoned . . . when he was still sensible he prayed 
for his murderers; and a priest of the sons of Rechab bade 
them cease. Finally a fuller dashed out his brains with a 
club” (Eusebius H. E. ii. 23). 

From this it may be gathered that James was, according to 
early Christian legend, regarded by the Jews with extraor- 
dinary respect as an ascetic, like the Baptist, and constantly in 
the Temple, like Simeon and Anna. Further he was supposed 
to know the truth about Jesus, and therefore when eschato- 
logical hopes of a miraculous deliverance were at their height, 
as they undoubtedly were just before the Jewish war, James 
was thought to be the right man to restrain them. As he 
refused to deny his belief that Jesus would come in glory, he 
was killed, but the most righteous of the priests regarded his 
death as a crime. 

Thus there is something to be said for the theory that when 
Paul came to Jerusalem a few years before the war with the 
Romans, the community of Christians there was under a man 
universally honoured as James the Righteous, that all were 
Jews of spotless orthodoxy in regard to the Law, and that their 
belief in Jesus in no way detracted from the popular favour 
they enjoyed. 

The delegation headed by Paul appeared before James 
and his elders, who listened with joy to the story of the con- 
version of the Gentiles. So far from hindering the good 
work they had but one desire, namely, that Paul should clear 
himself of a false report that he had dissuaded the Jews of 

207 


SA UNCP AIUWIs 


the Dispersion from observing the Law and circumcising their 
children. All that he need do was to perform the pious and 
popular duty of paying the expenses of some poor breth- 
ren who could not afford to discharge their vows in the 
Temple. As Paul had come to Jerusalem partly to discharge a 
vow he had taken upon himself, he readily consented to do 
this; and, accompanied by the four Jewish Christians who 
were being discharged of their vow by his liberality, he fre- 
quented the Temple for several days. Paul, as we have seen, 
had been allowed to travel to Jerusalem without hindrance; 
and with his Gentile convert Trophimus of Ephesus, and 
probably St. Luke, had been well received by the synagogue 
of the Christian observers of the Law. It seemed as though 
all was going well, when his enemies, the Jews from Asia, 
brought a charge against him which placed his life in great 
jeopardy. 

The Temple area was a large square, at this time sur- 
rounded by colonnades, to which all comers were admitted. 
But the Temple itself might not be entered by any one except 
a Jew. Around its enclosure columns were set up with a notice 
on each that any Gentile who passed the boundary would do 
so at the cost of his life. 

Paul’s inveterate enemies, the Jews from the province of 
Asia, who had recognized him in the city with his Gentile 
convert [’rophimus of Ephesus when they saw him perform- 
ing the ceremonies necessary for the discharge of his vow, 
raised a cry that here was the Apostate who had spoken 
“everywhere against the People of God, the Law, and the 
Temple” and to crown it all had now introduced Greeks into 
the sacred precincts and defiled the Holy Place itself (Acts 
xxi. 28). This last charge would be sufficient to justify the 
Jews putting him to death; and, even if the Roman soldiers 
rescued him from the populace, and he could be proved guilty, 
the government was bound to enforce the penalty. 

A terrible riot ensued, a mob of fanatics dragged Paul out 
of the Temple and was preparing to kill him. Directly he 
heard of the commotion the commander of the fortress of the 

2.08 


Treo Cr Cah ia Ls Ce Phat sna La reo lVE 


Antonia, which overlooked the Temple, rushed down at the 
head of his troops and arrested Paul from the frantic popu- 
lace, the soldiers carrying him up the steps which led to their 
quarters in the castle or fortress of Antonia, which overlooked 
the Temple, amid shouts of “kill him” (Acts xxi. 31-36). 

As it was impossible to ascertain from the excited multitude 
what Paul had done the military governor of Jerusalem whose 
name was Claudius Lysias, learning much to his surprise that 
Paul was, not an Egyptian leader of the sicarii or dagger- 
men who, according to Josephus, were giving much trouble 
at this time, but an educated citizen of Tarsus who spoke 
Greek, allowed him to address the people. Directly he began 
to speak in their native language the crowd listened in silence 
as he told them of his early life as a disciple of Gamaliel, 
his zeal for the Law, his activity as a persecutor. It 1s remark- 
able that his mention of the appearance of Jesus at his con- 
version provoked no hostility. Not till Paul declared that 
Jesus had sent him to the heathen did the fury of the people 
manifest itself with cries, “Away with the fellow from the 
earth, for it is not right that he should live” (Acts xxii. 22). 

Claudius Lysias now resolved to try the effect of torture 
by scourging on Paul; but, on the Apostle declaring himself 
a Roman citizen by birth, he was compelled to refrain, feeling 
that he had already exceeded his powers by so much as putting 
him in fetters. Thus ended, at any rate for some years, the 
active ministry of Paul, now in charge of the Roman soldiers 
in the Antonia at Jerusalem. 


209 


CHAPTERS Oy Taal 
ROMAN AND JEWISH TRIBUNALS 


Ir the student of Acts examines the contents of the book 
by a simple arithmetical process, he will find that the subject 
of Paul’s defence after his arrest at Jerusalem is treated at a 
length disproportionate to all that is related of his active 
labours. These begin to be related in the thirteenth chapter; 
and from that point to Paul’s arrest they occupy only twice 
as much as the space devoted to the adventures and defences 
of Paul before Jews and Romans down to his arrival at 
Rome. Nor does this include the vivid story of his voyage 
and shipwreck. To the man who wrote or edited Acts, the 
question of Paul’s innocence in regard to the charge that he 
had introduced heathen into the Temple must have been of the 
utmost importance. 

Claudius Lysias brought the Apostle, the day after his ar- 
rest, into the Sanhedrin to answer for himself to the High 
Priest and the official rulers. Paul’s conduct on this occasion 
reveals something of the state of parties in Jerusalem and it 
should be noted that, throughout, his persistent enemies were 
the priestly hierarchy, and here it is well to notice that this 
does not imply any fanaticism on the part of a prejudiced 
clergy, for of all men the priests of Jerusalem were the least 
likely to be swayed by religious bigotry. They had become an 
aristocratic order rather than a professional priesthood; in fact 
the people were zealous whilst the ruling hierachy was luke- 
warm. If they were active in bringing about the crucifixion 
of Jesus, the persecution of His Apostles, and desired the death 
of Paul, it was less because they were religious innovators, and 
that as such they might possibly disturb the tranquillity, on 
the preservation of which the privileges of the Priests of 

2IO 


ROMAN AND JEWISH TRIBUNALS 


the Temple depended. Accordingly, when Paul appeared 
before the Sanhedrin, Ananias, the High Priest, showed no 
desire to hear him but ordered the bystanders to smite him 
on the mouth. Not knowing who the speaker was, Paul re- 
buked him, but, learning it was the High Priest himself, he 
offered an apology. 

It was, however, evident that he could get no justice from 
such a tribunal. In all probability the case had broken down, 
there being no one able to prove that he had brought a heathen 
within the sacred precincts. Had Paul done so, his doom 
would have been sealed. So outrageous an insult to the 
Temple would have made all parties his enemies: even the 
believers in Jesus, who were zealous for the Law, would not 
have raised a hand to save him. It is doubtful if Claudius 
Lysias would have dared to provoke the riot which would 
have resulted by protecting so wanton an offender, Roman 
citizen though he was. It must be borne in mind that the 
trial before the Sanhedrin was not for opinion; all turned on 
a matter of fact. The gross violation of all decency on the 
part of the High Priest proved that Paul was innocent of the 
serious charge brought against him, and it was evident that 
the command to smite the accused had alienated the sympathy 
of his judges. Paul caught at the opportunity: he declared 
himself ‘fa Pharisee and the son of Pharisees” and that the 
real issue was not whether he had broken the Law but his doc- 
trine of the resurrection, which was part of the Pharisaic belief. 
If this artifice was unworthy of the Apostle, and later he 
expressed his regret for resorting to it (Acts xxiv. 21), it 
broke up the council and probably saved his life. Claudius 
Lysias, perceiving Paul’s life was in danger, ordered the sol- 
diers to bring him back to the Antonia. That night a vision 
assured him that he was destined to testify to his Lord in 
Rome (Acts xxiil. II). 

Baffled in their attempt to destroy Paul on a criminal 
charge, his enemies had recourse to violence. Forty fanatics 
bound themselves by a solemn curse neither to eat nor drink 
till they killed him, and the priests, being made privy to this 

211 


STATING Deh ean els 


atrocious conspiracy, decided to ask that they might again have 
Paul before them. As is usual in a plot in which a large 
number are engaged, the secret leaked out and Paul’s sister’s 
son informed Lysias of the conspiracy, and the military gov- 
ernor took prompt steps to frustrate it by ordering a force 
of nearly five hundred men to escort Paul out of Jerusalem 
and to take him to Cexsarea to Felix the Procurator of Judzxa 
(Acts xxiii. 12-35). 

The fact that a small army was employed on such a service 
may arouse suspicion that the author of Acts was guilty of 
unpardonable exaggeration; and the whole matter deserves 
careful consideration as it not only calls in question his veracity, 
but also may throw a light on the position of Paul at the 
time and on the condition of Palestine. There is a per- 
sistent effort made by writers of all schools to show that 
Paul and most of the Christians of this period belonged to 
the lower order of society. Having dedicated his whole life 
to preaching the Gospel at his own expense, supporting him- 
self by manual labour, he was unquestionably at times reduced 
to want; but at the same time, as has been previously shown, 
Paul was at the head of a numerous and active body of 
preachers, and had friends and relatives scattered throughout 
the Jewish world. He had come to Jerusalem to help the 
poor, bringing with him the representatives of several cities 
—some of them (Corinth, Thessalonica, Ephesus, and An- 
tioch,)* were extremely wealthy. He had been received by 
James, the respected head of a community, honoured for its 
reverence for the Law. If Paul had bitter enemies in Jeru- 
salem he had also many friends, and the Pharisaic party was 
on his side as against the Sadducean priestly aristocrats. It 
is quite conceivable that, had he been murdered by the fanatics, 
his death would have provoked a serious faction fight, and 
it was necessary, in order that peace might be preserved, 
that he should be at all costs taken safely out of Jeru- 
salem. We have besides the testimony of Josephus that in the 

1 Luke, according to tradition, was a native of Antioch; and, it may be, repre- 
sented it on this occasion as a delegate carrying its contribution to Jerusalem. 

212 


ROMAN AND, JEWISH TRIBUNALS 


days of Felix the country was seething with brigandage, and 
that the people were on the verge of rebellion. It need not 
therefore excite wonder that Claudius Lysias took extraordinary 
precautions to protect Paul, and to free himself from the con- 
sequences of any disturbance, by sending the Apostle out of 
Jerusalem under cover of night that the Procurator might 
keep him in custody in the non-Jewish city of Czxsarea Stra- 
tonis. Whether genuine or not, the letter attributed to 
Claudius Lysias reporting the affair to Felix is exactly what 
might be expected from a subordinate to his superior. The 
writer’s object is clearly to place his conduct in the most favour- 
able light. 

The letter informed the Procurator that Paul had been in 
danger of his life, owing to an assault made on him by the 
Jews, and that the writer, on learning he was a Roman citizen, 
had sent an armed force to save him. Having brought him 
before the Sanhedrin, he found that he was charged with 
offences against the Jewish Law, but not with any crime worthy 
of death. Asa plot to kill the prisoner had been discovered, 
Claudius Lysias thought it best to send Paul to Felix, and 
to order his accusers to appear before the governor at Czsarea. 
Felix read the letter, inquired as to Paul’s native province, 
and ordered him to be kept till his accusers should present 
themselves in the palace (pretortum) of Herod (Acts xxii. 
26-35). 

Both Josephus and Tacitus agree in describing Felix as a 
thoroughly bad man, and St. Luke’s narrative shows that he 
was venal and corrupt. Nevertheless one cannot fail to have 
some pity for any official, however wicked, who had the task 
of administering Judea at this time. The difficulties of any 
one who attempted the task of governing the country were 
such that it was impossible to emerge with credit; and Felix 
had been at least able to continue some years in his position, 
and, by fair means or foul, to maintain a certain amount of 
order. 

He was of servile origin, and owed his preferment to his 
brother Pallas, the freedman of Antonia mother of Claudius, 

213 


SANG ISP) de 


and a person of great influence under that Emperor, and 
also in the early days of Nero. Josephus and Tacitus are at 
hopeless disagreement about Felix, especially in regard to his 
marriage; for Tacitus says he married Drusilla, the daughter 
of Antony and Cleopatra, instead of Drusilla the sister of 
Agrippa II and Berenice.” Anyhow, if Tacitus’ epigrammatic 
saying that he exercised “The power of a prince with the dis- 
position of a slave” be true, Felix was lacking neither in 
energy nor capacity. He is accused of basely conniving at the 
murder of the virtuous High Priest Jonathan by the sicarii; 
but he put down Eleazar, a robber chief (Wars II. xiii. 2). 
composed what threatened to be a civil war between the 
Greeks and Jews in Cesarea (Antig. XX. ix. 7) and suppressed 
the formidable rebellion of an Egyptian Jewish impostor in 
Jerusalem. The Jews of Czxsarea accused Felix at Rome 
before Nero, but by the influence of Pallas he was acquitted 
(Antig. XX. 1x. 9). 

Five days after the arrival of Paul at Cesarea, the High 
Priest Ananias and the Jewish elders came there with an advo- 
cate named. Tertullus. The sum of his accusation against Paul 
was that, as the leader of the faction of the Nazoreans (for 
so the Christians were called), he was a public nuisance to the 
Jews throughout the world. But Tertullus had a bad case; 
for no judge would condemn a Roman citizen on such grounds, 
and the most that could be said on the capital charge was that 
Paul had tried to profane the Temple (Acts xxiv. 6). 

Paul’s defence, briefly as it is given, was complete. He had 
been to Jerusalem to worship, he had caused no disturbance, 
and though he represented a so-called sect of Judaism, he 
worshipped the God of his Fathers, as he was permitted to 
do by Roman Law. The cardinal doctrine of his sect was a 
belief in a resurrection of just and unjust, which was implicit 
in the Jewish Scriptures. He had not been to Jerusalem 


2JIn his History v. 9, Tacitus says that Claudius and Felix were related, since 
the Emperor was the grandson of Mark Antony as Felix became by his marriage. 
fle has evidently made a mistake about Drusilla. 


214 


ROMAN AND JEWISH TRIBUNALS 


for many years, had come on a charitable errand, and had 
been found submitting to ritual purifications. Where, he asked, 
were the Asian Jews, who ought to have come to prove the 
alleged offence of introducing heathen into the Temple? 
Finally he challenged the priests to say whether they had 
found anything wrong about him, when he stood before them 
in the Sanhedrin, except his declaring that he was really on trial 
because of his belief in a resurrection (Acts xxiv. 10-21). 
This plea was unanswerable; and as Felix knew more 
about the matter than the Jews suspected, he remanded Paul 
to the care of a centurion, and gave orders that his friends 
should be allowed to visit him. Perhaps the author of Acts 
attempts to explain the knowledge of “the Way” which Felix 
possessed by the fact that he had married a Jewish princess; 
anyhow, he mentions Drusilla in connection with Felix and his 
interviews with Paul about the new faith when Paul spoke of 
“riohteousness and judgment to come,” and Felix “trembled.” 
As Paul had, if not money of his own, at least friends who 
could supply it, Felix is said to have kept him in prison; and, 
when summoned to Rome to answer to the accusations of the 
Jews, the Procurator, hoped to satisfy them by leaving Paul 
in bonds. Thus two years of complete inactivity at Czsarea 
passed before Paul’s case was resumed. During the whole of 
his imprisonment at Cxsarea we hear nothing about Paul, 
which is the more remarkable as the author of Acts may have 
been with him. Nor was any letter of his assigned in An- 
tiquity to this period, and there is no tradition about it. For 
two years we are left in complete ignorance; but at the end 
the Apostle appears once more, vigorous in mind, and able 
to prove himself undaunted in days of peril and shipwreck. 
Felix was succeeded as procurator by Porcius Festus who, 
three days after his arrival at Cesarea, went to Jerusalem, 
where the chief priests, doubtless in the hope of presuming on 
his ignorance of Jewish affairs, begged that he would send Paul 
to them. Acts says that the idea was to kill Paul on his way 
to the city; but Festus was too wise to assent to the priests’ 
215 


Si DEN a eA Lely 


request. He suggested that they should accompany him to 
Czesarea, and there prefer their complaints against Paul. These 
were “many and grievous” but could not shake Paul’s defence 
that he had committed no offence against the Jewish Law, the 
Temple or the Roman State. Festus, in hopes of gratifying the 
Jews, asked Paul if he would consent to go to Jerusalem and 
stand his trial. ‘This caused decisive action on his part. Asa 
Roman citizen he had the right to appeal to the tribunes of the 
people; and, as he could obtain no justice in Czsarea, he boldly 
pronounced the words “I appeal to Cesar.” The Emperor was 
vested with tribunician power and consequently constituted in 
himself the final court of appeal. Festus, astonished at this turn 
of affairs, conferred with his council, but the action of Paul 
could not be gainsaid, and the Procurator said, “Hast thou 
appealed to Czsar? Unto Cesar shalt thou go.” 

At this point there appears on the scene the last prominent 
member of the famous Herodian family, a race conspicuous 
for men and women renowned alike for their ability, beauty, 
ruthlessness and profligacy. In the Acts, however, Herod 
Agrippa II is represented on this occasion to have acted the 
part of an attentive auditor and a courteous and considerate 
judge. 

This Herod was the son of a prince of the same name, 
who, as King of Judza, had gone down to posterity as the 
first royal persecutor of the Church. He had been, however, 
not altogether unjustly, regarded by the Jews as an excellent 
monarch. He was acceptable to his Hebrew subjects as repre- 
senting in the female line the great Maccabean princes. But 
his son, though he was in high favour with the Roman govern- 
ment, was not given his paternal kingdom of Judza, but had 
been entrusted with the custody of the Temple treasury and 
the appointment of the High Priest, the religious ruler of 
Judaism. Thus Agrippa, king of part of Northern Palestine, 
was, at least in Jewish affairs, in a sense a colleague of Festus. 
True to the tradition of his family, this Herod was always 
loyal to the Roman government, and in the Jewish War was on 
the side of the conquerors. He never failed, however, to 

216 


ReQa hi ANG A NED? yok Walts Bish Reb Ban AS 


do all he could to help his countrymen before the outbreak of 
hostilities; and did all in his power to avert the catastrophe 
by representing to them the folly of engaging in a war with 
Rome. On this occasion he was accompanied by his sister 
Berenice, a fascinating but utterly profligate lady; and dread- 
ful stories were current among the Jews and Romans 
concerning her intercourse with her brother. Nevertheless 
she once displayed a magnanimity, shown by other princesses 
of her family, by appearing to intercede for the Jews in the 
guise of a suppliant with bare feet, and narrowly escaped from 
the brutal Procurator Gessius Florus with her life. She was 
greatly beloved by the Emperor Titus, who later, to avoid the 
indignation of the Romans, dismissed her from Rome with 
regret. Her brother was the patron and friend of Josephus, 
and survived till the principate of Trajan, dying a. p. 100. 

Festus brought Paul’s case before Agrippa and asked his 
advice as to how he should report the matter to Augustus 
(Nero). Agrippa gladly consented to allow the Apostle to 
appear before him and to explain his doctrine and opinions. 

The speech of Paul is given at length; and, whether it 1s 
his own or a composition of the author of Acts, it is of the 
highest interest and importance. 


“T consider myself fortunate, King Agrippa, to have the 
opportunity of defending myself to thee because thou 
knowest all the customs of us Jews and our disputes (Acts 
XXVi. I-4). 

“Every one of the Jews knows what my life was from 
my youth in Jerusalem; that J was a Pharisee, the most 
scrupulous party in our religion, and I am now on my 
trial because of the hope I have in the promise made to 
our fathers, to which our twelve tribes who serve God 
continually hope to attain. On account of this hope I am 
accused by the Jews. Why should you not believe that 
God will raise the dead? I thought myself that I ought 
to oppose the name of Jesus the Nazorean” (Acts xxvi. 
5-9). 

217 


SA LN Ty RAR 


This exordium is most skilful. Paul makes Agrippa 
aware that the conspiracy against his life is mainly Sadducean, 
and instigated by the priestly hierarchy; and he adopts the 
same line of defence on this occasion as he had done before 
the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem (Acts xxii. 6ff.). But he declares 
further that his own belief in a resurrection depends on the 
faith he has in Jesus, a statement in strict accordance with 
his doctrine in his Epistles. As a Pharisee he taught the 
resurrection and hoped for it, as a Christian he was assured 
as to its certainty. Then, as he*did in his speech on the Temple 
steps (Acts xxii. 4ff.), Paul describes his conversion; and here 
the words attributed to him are difficult to reconcile, not only 
with my personal contention that, in Jerusalem at least, the 
Jewish believers in Jesus were never seriously molested, but 
with the ancient sources employed in the composition of the 
earlier chapters of Acts. 


“And I did this in Jerusalem and many of the holy 
ones I imprisoned, having authority from the chief priests. 
And when they were being put to death I gave my vote 
against them, and punishing them in my synagogues I 
used to compel them to blaspheme, and being very mad 
with them I pursued them as far the cities outside” 
(Jerusalem) (Acts xxvi. 10-11). 


This would imply that the persecution (related in Acts vi- 
vii) was a bloody one, that Stephen was not the only victim, 
and that systematic judicial proceedings were taken and re- 
sulted in executions, whereas certainly one source represents 
the death of Stephen as tumultuary rather than regular. It 
would also appear that the Jews were the first to resort to the 
practice of the Roman officials, the earliest mention of which 
is Pliny’s letter to Trajan (cf. a.p. 110), and forced the 
believers to blaspheme Jesus. Where so much of the defence 
before Agrippa has the appearance of being a report of one 
who heard it, it can only be suggested that the writer, carried 

218 


ROMAN AND JEWISH TRIBUNALS 


away by his own rhetoric, ascribes to St. Paul words more 
applicable to a later time. 

The account of the conversion differs in some respects from 
that in Acts ix and from Paul’s speech in Acts xxii. It relates 
that the risen Jesus spoke in the Hebrew dialect (Aramean), 
and His words, inserted in later manuscripts in Acts 1x. 5, “It 
is hard for thee to kick against the goad.?? The conclusion 
of the address is eloquent and impressive. 


“Wherefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to 
the heavenly vision, but first to those in Damascus and in 
Jerusalem and in all Judza, and (then) to the Gentiles, 
I proclaimed that men should repent and turn to God, and 
do works worthy of repentance. For this reason the Jews 
caught me in the Temple and tried to kill me. But, by 
the help of God unto this day, I have stood testifying to 
small and great, saying nothing more than the prophets 
and Moses himself have said will come to pass, that the 
Messiah is to suffer, and, by being the first to rise from 
the dead, will proclaim light to the People of Israel and 
to the Gentiles” (Acts xxvi. 22-23). 


Festus interrupted Paul: “Thou art beside thyself; much 
learning hath made thee mad.” Paul replied that he was 
not mad but was speaking words of truth and soberness, as 
King Agrippa must know, for the work of Jesus was not 
“done in a corner.” ‘Then turning to the King, Paul said 
solemnly, “King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I 
know that thou believest.” Half jestingly the monarch, in the 
words of the Authorized, and all the older English versions, 
made a remark (whether correctly translated or not) which 
has become proverbial. “Almost thou persuadest me to be 
a Christian.” With great gravity the Apostle replied, “I would 
to God that not only thou but all that hear me were both 
almost and altogether such as I am,” adding with sad courtesy 
“except these bonds” (Acts xxvi. 28-29). Thereupon Festus, 
Agrippa, and their assessors conferred and the King gave 

219 


S74 (EN avin PeAT te 


judgement. “This man might have been set at liberty if he 
had not appealed unto Cesar.” Thus Paul’s anxious captivity 
in Judza ended with his acquittal by the secular head of the 
Jewish religion, who, if not King of Judza, made and unmade 
High Priests according to his will and pleasure. 


220 


CHAPTER XIX 


PAUL IN ROME 


One of the finest contributions to the understanding of Acts 
was made in the middle of the nineteenth century by a Scottish 
gentleman, James Smith of Jordan hill, who after a minute 
study of the Mediterranean and the condition of navigation, 
explained the chapters in which the voyage to Rome and the 
shipwreck are related. Ina life of St. Paul a detailed account 
of the voyage is scarcely necessary ; all that is really needed 1s 
to see how the story as told in Acts, instructive as it is in 
other respects, illustrates the character of the Apostle. 

The voyage was a stormy one from the first. The ship 
on which the centurion, by name Julius, had embarked the pris- 
oners had some difficulty in reaching the southwestern extrem- 
ity of Asia Minor, where they took a passage in a large corn 
ship of Alexandria bound for Italy. She was not a seaworthy 
vessel, perhaps even for the period, since she became a hopeless 
wreck in the open sea, owing to the force of violent gales 
which lasted for fully a fortnight. She was navigated by a 
master who may have known that it was imprudent to continue 
the voyage, but was overruled by his owner and the Roman 
officer, both of whom were ready to risk the danger of getting 
to 2 more convenient harbour. The crew appears to have been 
ill-disciplined and cowardly, ready to abandon the passengers 
to certain destruction in order to save themselves. There 
were seventy persons at least, and according to most manu- 
scripts two hundred and seventy, a by no means impossible 
number for a large ship to carry in the first century. Josephus 
was wrecked on a vessel with about six hundred souls on 
board. St. Luke, who was with Paul, together with another 

2.21 


S ASLEN SDP eA ans 


Christian, Aristarchus of Thessalonica, shows his usual care in 
marking the stages of the journey. 

The centurion, who was named Julius, put to sea from 
Czsarea to Sidon where he courteously allowed Paul to land 
and visit his friends, who contributed to the comfort of his 
long voyage. After sailing under the lee of Cyprus, owing 
to contrary winds, they crossed the sea of Cilicia and Pam- 
phylia and disembarked at Myra in Lycia, where they took 
passage on the Alexandrian corn ship. Owing to adverse 
winds it took many days to reach Cnidus, the last promontory 
of Asia Minor, and the travellers with difficulty arrived at 
Salmone, the western cape of Crete. A troublesome voyage 
along the lee shore brought them to a little seaport called 
Fair Havens. They should have put in there for the winter; 
but, as the weather improved, it was decided to try to reach 
a better harbour called Phoenix. It was already autumn; the 
Fast (the day of Atonement) was over, and Paul, whose 
experience as a traveller made his opinion of value, was called 
in to confer with the principal officers on board. Julius seems 
to have had the casting vote, and preferred the advice of the 
professional sailors to that of an experienced landsman. He 
had cause to regret his decision, for suddenly a violent wind, 
locally known as the Euraquilo (a northeaster), came down 
from the Cretan mountains and drove the vessel past the islet 
of Cauda into the open sea. It is a remarkable example of 
the crudity of ancient navigation that a large ship had only 
one small boat which was towed astern. This was, however, 
drawn up into the ship; and for days the storm continued 
with unabated force. As the ship appeared likely to founder 
at any moment, all that could be done was to prevent her 
being carried into the Syrtis, on the inhospitable coast of 
North Africa, and to lighten her by every possible means. 
All, except Paul, abandoned hope, especially as in the dark- 
ness of the storm neither sun nor star gave any clue as to 
their whereabouts. At last, however, the ship drifted upon 
the shallows off Malta and went to pieces. All, however, 
landed in safety and were kindly received by the inhabitants. 

222 


PAU SNe ROME 


They remained there for three months when the centurion 
and his prisoners embarked on another Alexandrian ship called 
the Dioscori (Castor and Pollux). They had a favourable 
voyage to Syracuse, passed Rhegium, and landed at Puteoll, 
near Naples, making their way to Rome by land, and being 
met by Christians at Appii Forum and the Three Taverns 
(Acts xxvii. I, xxvili. 16). 

The important feature of the whole voyage was the part 
played throughout by the Apostle, and the sobriety of the 
narrative, which, amid all the terrors of the tempest, attributes 
to him nothing more miraculous than a vision, extremely 
natural under the circumstances, and makes Paul act with a 
courage and commonsense which caused him, prisoner though 
he was, to become the actual leader of the panic-stricken crew, 
He foresaw clearly the danger of thinking a temporarily 
favourable breeze would carry the ship from Fair Havens to 
Phoenix. When all despaired, he assured the whole com- 
pany that they would be saved if only they did not lose 
heart. He frustrated the cowardly attempt of the sailors 
to escape in the little boat from the wrecked vessel, and he 
made all take a regular meal before they abandoned the ship. 
No wonder Julius, “wishing to save Paul,” prevented the 
soldiers from killing the prisoners. In Malta he maintained 
his ascendancy, first by shaking off a snake which had bitten 
him, then by praying and healing the father of the governor 
of the island; and finally by the attention he and his com- 
panions showed to the sick and the cures miraculous and other- 
wise they effected. 

Arrived at Rome, Paul, who had been heartily welcomed 
by the Christian community, having gone many miles from the 
city to meet him, was given the privileges of an honoured 
prisoner; and, under what was known as custodia libera, al- 
lowed to live where he chose under the guardianship of a 
soldier. He must have had influential adherents both in 
Palestine and Rome to secure him such lenient treatment, 
which certainly must have been costly to the Apostle or to his 
friends (Acts xxviii. 16). 

2.23 


SAINT PAUL 


Paul’s first act was to summon the Jewish elders to a 
conference and to assure them that he had no complaint 
to make against his nation, but had been compelled in self- 
defence to appeal to the Emperor at Rome. They replied 
that they had no communication from Jerusalem about him, 
but would be interested to hear what his real opinions were. 
Having appointed a day, Paul reasoned with them out of 
Moses and the Prophets. As the meeting broke up Paul told 
them, with a quotation from Isaiah which Jesus Himself had 
used in relation to His parables, that henceforth the salvation 
of God was for the Gentiles (Acts xxvii. 17-28). 

“And he remained two whole years in his own lodging, 
and received all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom 
of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all 
boldness without hindrance.”? With these words the narra- 
tive of Acts abruptly concludes; and we have no further 
direct information about St. Paul. All we can do is to in- 
quire from his later Epistles what he reveals about his so- 
journ in Rome, and then to discover what happened, taking as 
our guide the letters to Timothy and Titus, known as the Pas- 
toral Epistles, and attributed at a very early date to the Apostle. 
In the end we are left to the testimony of the tradition 
of the Christian Church. But after the two years’ 1m- 
prisonment at Rome, Paul becomes an increasingly shadowy 
figure, and the last days of the greatest missionary of Christ, 
and the teacher whose words have had the most abiding effect 
on the Faith, are lost in obscurity. 

Supposing that Paul reached Rome in the spring of a. p. 
60, and that Acts takes us to the year 62, this would be 
two years before the fire and, so far as we know, the first 
Gentile persecution of the Church. Paul, as has been evident 
from Acts, was in no danger from the government because 
of his opinions, being as a Jew protected by law as regards 
religion. All the Jews could urge was that he was an apos- 
tate, and no Jew, and consequently had placed himself out- 
side the toleration granted to their faith; but to this no 
Roman official, nor even a Jew like Agrippa Il, was pre- 

224 


PAUL IN ROME 


pared to listen for an instant. If his enemies urged that he 
was guilty of sedition or disloyalty (maiestas) he was lable 
to be condemned to death; but no one took this charge seri- 
ously. For some reason or another the trial was postponed, but 
when the law courts are fully occupied, this is easily accounted 
for. According to Acts the Jews were not particularly anxious 
to have the case tried and long remained inactive. It seems 
clear that, unless the author of Acts intended to write another 
book which he never published, and this is pure hypothesis, 
he ended at a dramatic point, and meant to leave the im- 
pression that Paul was acquitted at Rome. Even the “soldier 
that kept him” in Acts xxviii. 16 disappears in the concluding 
verse of Acts. 

It has been maintained also that Paul was put to death 
at the end of two years of captivity at Rome. But this seems 
in absolute conflict with the purpose of Acts which lays stress 
on his being allowed to preach without hindrance. Some, 
who uphold this view of Paul’s death, assign Acts to the last 
years of the first century. This would falsify the entire 
argument; for it would be easy for any one to add, “At the 
end of which period he was beheaded, and the Jews won 
their case against Paul.” The apparent object of the history 
of the Apostle, as related in this book, is to prove that he 
was not guilty in the eyes of the Roman authorities; and, 
if he was executed on that account immediately after the 
concluding verses were written, Acts must be very early indeed. 

There are four letters of Paul’s which are generally as- 
signed to the period of his Roman captivity, one being no 
more than a brief note to Philemon. Of the three others, 
Philippians strikes a decidedly personal note, being addressed 
to Paul’s beloved converts at Philippi; Colossians is sent to 
a church to whom the Apostle was apparently personally un- 
known, and its companion letter, the so-called “Epistle to 
the Ephesians,” is of the nature of a discourse sent in a cir- 
cular letter to several churches. There is great difference 
of opinion as to the date of Philippians, and also as to the 
place where it was written. Some think it belongs to the 

225 


SAIN abe Aa Wes 


period of Paul’s active life during his long sojourn at 
Ephesus, in opposition to the older view that it belongs to 
the Roman captivity. If the earlier date is maintained it is 
possible that Paul wrote to the Philippians not from Ephesus, 
but from Czsarea. 

Assuming, therefore, though it is by no means certain, 
that Paul wrote to Philippi from Rome; we may collect two 
possible allusions to this period. 

(1) Paul was in bonds for his defence of the Gospel (Phil. 
12071). 7 

(2) His afflictions had proved serviceable to the cause be- 
cause his imprisonment is known in all the pretoritum— 
whether this means the camp of the pretorian guards, or the 
soldiers themselves is uncertain. The fact that he is a prisoner 
has encouraged the brethren to preach God’s word, though 
some do it through jealousy, thinking to add to his affliction. 
However, the Apostle consoles himself with the thought that, 
whatever the motive of his rivals may be, Christ is being 
preached (Phil. 1. 15-20). 

This might well happen in Rome; for we know from the 
Epistle to the Church there that Paul had many opponents 
who disliked his teaching and these would gladly counteract it; 
and hoped to do so without contradiction when they saw he 
was a prisoner. 

(3) He hopes to send Timothy to Philippi for news of 
his friends, and he has already dispatched Epaphroditus who 
has been very ill owing to the extreme zeal with which he has 
ministered to the Apostle, and doing what the Philippians 
would gladly have done. Paul also has great hopes of being 
at liberty to come himself to Philippi (Phil. ii. 19-24, 25-30). 
At the same time the Apostle seems to forebode that his life is 
nearats.end, (Phils) 20m 7M O). 

(4) He bids the Philippians beware of the Judaic party 
of the circumcision (Phil. iii. 2). As has been indicated, these 
must have been very active in Rome. 

(5) He rejoices that the Philippians have again remem- 

226 


PAU EF TN ROME 


bered him and sent to minister to his necessities, which at 
times must have been very great at Rome, where if chained 
to : soldier he could not work for his living (Phil. iv. 10-12, 
Tin) 
(6) Lastly, he mentions the house (or familia) of the 
Emperor, which would not be as appropriate anywhere as at 
Rome (Phil. iv. 22). | 

Now we know from the testimony of the catacombs that the 
Christian religion had taken a great hold in the Roman upper 
classes; and it is well-nigh certain that under the Flavian 
Emperors (Vespasian, Titus and Domitian) it had a footing 
in the imperial household. We know further that Nero’s 
wife Poppza had Jewish sympathies, and as she died as late 
as A. D. 65, the new sect may have been known among her 
entourage. Scanty as the material which is supplied by this 
Philippian letter, it may give us a glimpse of what Paul 
was doing during his captivity. 

The three letters to Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians 
belong to a group by themselves. Allusion has already been 
made to the graceful way in which Paul asks Philemon to 
receive with gentleness his runaway slave Onesimus, who 
had apparently been found in Rome, and had been converted 
by the Apostle, and became his devoted attendant. In this 
letter Paul describes himself as “aged man” (another read- 
ing is “an ambassador”) and also a prisoner. His companions 
are Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, and Lucas; and we know 
from Acts that Aristarchus of Thessalonica accompanied Paul 
on his voyage to Rome (Acts xxviii. 2) as did Luke, if he is 
the author of the “we-sections.” Mark also is connected with 
the Roman Church (Phil. 23-24). 

Those who salute the Colossians are Tychicus, the bearer 
of the letter, who, with all the others, is named in the letter 
to Philemon. From this we may infer that Paul was able 
to send his missionaries from Rome to Asia Minor, and so 
maintain his influences over the churches which he or they 
had founded. 

The Colossian letter is of particular interest as it deals with 

227 


SVAN DieP ACU L 


a form of asceticism of a Gnostic type prevalent in that 
church. That Paul had never been there himself is a proof 
of the close connection he maintained even at Rome with the 
churches of Asia, and of the knowledge of what was going 
on in so distant a place. Rome, one of the most cosmopolitan 
of cities, was affected by all religious movements; and this 
heresy of Colossz, whether it is correctly called Gnostic or 
not, was certainly Jewish in character, and had probably spread 
to Rome, so that the Apostle may have spoken from experience 
rather than hearsay. | 

The letter to the Ephesians is in many respects similar to the 
Colossian though it possesses special features of its own. Still, 
its absence of all personal allusions makes it, important as 
it is for Pauline theology, of little service for our present 
purpose. There remain only the three Pastoral Epistles, 
the genuineness of which has been sharply criticized. But 
whether they are by Paul or not they are of significance to his 
biographer, as they are the most ancient testimony to the 
later life of the Apostle. 

The objection to their being, as they stand, Paul’s com- 
position, can be briefly stated. 

The vocabulary is so different from that of the Pauline 
Epistles that all, even the most conservative critics, have rec- 
ognized the fact. It is also obvious that the language em- 
ployed is not altogether due to the peculiar subjects dealt 
with in these letters, and the explanation that Paul adopted 
a new phraseology in his later life is not entirely satisfying. 

Less obvious, but even more significant, is that the teach- 
ing of the letters, though resembling that of Paul elsewhere, 
is not exactly his. The tone is not really that adopted in the 
earlier Epistles, and there are indications that the writer at 
times did not quite grasp the meaning of the Apostle’s position. © 
The same has been noticed above in some of the speeches put 
into his mouth in Acts. 

The interest of these Epistles is centred in regulations 
affecting order and discipline, and in emphasizing the impor- 
tance of the traditions of the Church; and, though Paul shows 

2.2.8 


PAUL IN ROME 


his ability elsewhere as an organizer, the spirit of the Pastoral 
Epistles is somehow different. 

On the other hand, the canonicity, or acceptance of these 
Epistles as of Paul by the Church, is beyond question. No 
one seems to have doubted either their authorship or their 
authority from the second century onward, except the heretic 
Marcion, whose erroneous doctrine must never cause us to 
be unjust to his critical capacity. Here, however, our business 
is to see what light the Epistles to Titus and Timothy may 
throw on the career of Paul after the two years at Rome, 
mentioned at the conclusion of Acts. One cannot overlook 
the theory that the Pastorals may have been based on genuine 
letters, written by the Apostle to his trusted associates at the 
time when, according to Acts, he was active in Ephesus and 
Macedonia, and expanded by a redactor. Assuming, how- 
ever, that they refer to the later period, we must endeavour 
to glean from them the facts actually alluded to and, despite 
all the imaginary details found in the popular lives of St. 
Paul, we must admit that the results are somewhat scanty. 

Paul may, on his liberation from his Roman captivity, have 
gone to Asia where he had expressed a hope of paying a 
visit to Philemon (Phil. 22). According to Pastoral Epistles 
he went to Ephesus, where he left Timothy to set the church 
in order and to combat the heresies prevalent there, especially 
those of two unknown leaders, Hymenzus and Alexander (I 
Tim. i. 3, 19-20). It seems that during his stay at Ephesus, 
or more possibly in Macedonia, he visited Crete, and left 
Titus there, as he had done Timothy at Ephesus. He in- 
tended to send Tychicus, the bearer of the Colossian letter, 
to Titus, or else a man named Artemas. Zenas “the lawyer” 
and Apollos, who were with Titus, are to be sent on their 
journey and supplied with all necessaries. When Tychicus 
or Artemas came to Crete, Titus was to rejoin Paul at Nico- 
polis in Epirus where he proposed to spend the winter. The 
very obscurity of the allusions at the end of the letter to 
Titus are in favour of its being, in part at least, a genuine 
document (Titus iii. 12-14). 

2.29 


SACDN Dee eae Ue 


The Second Epistle to Timothy contains more notices of 
a personal character. Paul is apparently at Rome, forsaken 
by some of his old companions, who, like Demas, have loved 
this present world. Only Luke has remained with him. 
Timothy is to come as soon as he can, and bring Mark. He 
is to go by way of Troas, where Paul had left his cloak and 
some important parchments at the house of Crispus. A bitter 
enemy, called Alexander the coppersmith, is mentioned, as 
is also the Apostle’s “first defence” in some Roman court, 
from which he has been delivered “from the mouth of the 
lion” (II Tim. iv. 9-18). Onesiphorus, an Asiatic for whose 
house Paul asks a blessing, has sought him out in Rome; 
otherwise all his Asian friends have failed him (II Tim. 1. 
15-18). He salutes Prisca and Aquila, who were apparently 
at Ephesus, and despite of his having said, “Only Luke 1s with 
me,” sends greetings from Eubulus, Pudens, Linus and 
Claudia (II Tim. iv. 19-20). Linus is supposed to be the 
first bishop of Rome. Of Pudens and Claudia it will be 
necessary to speak later. 

In this Epistle Paul is evidently certain that his last hour 
is nigh: “Already I am being poured forth (as a libation) 
and the time of my dissolution has come. I have fought the 
good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith” 
(II Tim. iv. 6-7). 

This is all we can learn from the New Testament by the 
dubious light of the Pastoral Epistles. If we would follow 
Paul to the end it is amid the darkness of tradition. 


230 


ETE oe as Hs ROB IKE, 
LEGENDARY HISTORY OF ST. PAUL 


For the last days of Paul we have no guide but tradition; 
and it is well to remind oneself that tradition, although not 
always reliable, is not for that reason negligible. When, for 
example, we find an almost universal belief that Paul suf- 
fered death by being beheaded at Rome in the days of Nero, 
the onus probandi rests with those who would deny the fact. 
And the tradition of the ancient Roman Church cannot be 
lightly set aside, whatever our attitude towards the Church 
of Rome of today may be. From the first it was distinguished 
by a conservatism impatient of any innovations, even though 
for its own apparent benefit. It claimed unbroken continuity 
and unsullied orthodoxy, and was looked up to from very 
early days as a model for lesser churches. It constantly 
claimed that was in a twofold sense Apostolic in so far as its 
foundations were laid by Peter, the Apostle of the Jews and 
Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles. It asserted that both had 
suffered death by martyrdom in Rome, and called itself “the 
Church of St. Peter and St. Paul.” The first known writer 
to emphasize this claim for its preéminence was not a Roman, 
but an Asiatic bishop, presiding over a church in Gaul in the 
person of St. Irenzus. 

Irenzus is the representative of both traditional and cos- 
mopolitan Christianity. He tells us that when he was a boy 
he remembers seeing Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who had 
known the Apostle John. Polycarp must have been born in, 
and possibly even before, the last quarter of the first cen- 
tury; for, at the time of his martyrdom in a. p. 156, he says 
he had served Christ for eighty-six years. The tradition of 

231 


SCAN UNE ean Oak 


Irenzeus, therefore, goes back far into the Apostolic Age. In 
the days of Irenzus nothing, not even the written records of 
the New Testament, was so highly prized in the early Church 
as tradition; because it was the boast of every Christian teacher, 
even if he were considered heretical, that he handed down 
his doctrine as it had been received from the original disciples 
of Jesus. Irenzus had left his native home for distant Gaul, 
and had settled at Lyons, a Greek-speaking trading settle- 
ment on the river Rhone. He had spent much time in Rome 
lecturing against the heresies which the Gnostics were labour- 
ing to introduce. The most potent weapon he found against 
these was tradition; for when the new teachers declared that 
they had received their doctrine from Peter, Paul or John, 
Irenzus asks the pertinent question: How is it then that the 
Churches, which are presided over by men representing these 
great Apostles, are unaware of the teaching you profess to 
have learned from them? Thus Irenzus records that his 
master St. Polycarp remembered the horror of the Apostle 
John when he met Cerinthus, one of the earliest Gnostics, 
and points out that the Roman Church has what the Latin 
translation of his Third Book calls a potentior principalitas, 
because it has two apostolic founders, Peter and Paul. Irenzus 
gives a list of the first twelve bishops of Rome down to 
Eleutherus in his own day. This differs from other early 
lists in some slight respects and, with one notable exception, 
the first eight are practically unknown. But the object of 
Irenzus made it clear that the succession handed down the 
true tradition, on which Peter and Paul were agreed. This 
testimony of Irenzus, if not the earliest, is perhaps the most 
important because Irenzus by his personal experience in Rome 
knew that the tradition of the connection of Peter and Paul 
as joint founders of the Church was already firmly established. 

The conspicuous exception to the general obscurity of the 
early Roman bishops from Linus to Hyginus is Clement, 
whose prominence in later tradition shows that he must have 
been highly regarded in his own day. 

The only possible document under his name which we can 

2.32 


ee A Reve IGE Sd One ye Ob Shy PAUL 


reasonably suppose to belong to his age is the so-called “First 
Epistle of Clement.” This at one time had a quasi-scriptural 
authority; and it appears at the end of the Codex Alexan- 
drinus, one of the oldest manuscripts of the Old and New 
Testaments. 

The Epistle does not profess to be by Clement nor does 
his name appear in it. It purports to be from “the Church 
of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God 
which sojourneth in Corinth.” Its object is to allay certain 
differences which were distracting the Corinthian community. 
It gives no definite indication of date, yet it cannot be earlier 
than a.p. 75 nor later than 110. The passage important for 
our purpose is: 


“Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles. Peter, 
who because of unrighteous jealousy suffered not one 
nor two but many trials, and having given his testimony 
went to the glorious place which was his due. Because 
of jealousy and strife Paul showed the way to win the 
prize of endurance. Seven times he was in bonds, he 
was driven away as an exile, he was a herald both in 
East and West, he won the noble glory of his faith. 
He taught righteousness to all the world, and when he 
had reached the limit of the West he gave his testimony 
before rulers, and thus passed from the world and was 
taken up into the Holy Place, the greatest example of 
endurance” (1 Clem. v.). 


This passage is certainly rhetorical and gives little infor- 
mation. The writer evidently knows little about Peter, and 
only of Paul by a tradition, possibly based on the Acts or 
Epistles. If the “limit of the West” means Spain, it might 
be supposed from the context that Paul suffered martyrdom 
there! But the general, and perhaps legitimate inference is 
that Peter and Paul were believed at the end of the first 
century to have been martyred at Rome. 

Ignatius, the martyr bishop of Antioch, on his way to 


233 


SrATIND lia eels 


death at Rome very early in the second century writes to the 
Church there: “I do not command you like Peter and Paul” 
(Rom. vi.) and this, though often quoted, proves no more 
than that an Antiochene bishop connects these names together 
as the most revered in the Roman Church. Writing to 
Ephesus Ignatius alludes to Paul, says that he was a martyr, 
but does not mention where (Eph. xii.). 

From both Tertullian of Carthage and Origen of Alex- 
andria we have evidence of the belief that Peter and Paul 
suffered in Rome; and though these writers only belong to the 
third century, both visited Rome, and Tertullian was keenly 
interested in the Church there. They both declare that Paul 
was beheaded, and Origen adds that Peter was crucified head 
downwards, at his own request, if we may credit St. Jerome, 
that he might not presume to imitate his Lord. 

The testimony of Eusebius of Czsarea in Palestine deserves 
careful attention; for, though he lived in the fourth cen- 
tury, he was a diligent collector of ancient material for his 
history, and had unusual opportunities for accumulating it. 
Where, therefore, Eusebius is ignorant, one may safely as- 
sume that the men of his time were completely in the dark, 
and also that the writers whom he quotes were silent on the 
subject. For himself, he mentions the release of Paul from 
the first captivity; and Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. it. 22) quotes 
as his authority II Timothy, departing in no respect from 
what has been said in our previous chapter. As to Paul’s 
death he declares that it took place under Nero, and quotes 
“Caius an ecclesiastical man” (ecclestastikos), who lived in 
the time of Zephyrinus (Bishop of Rome, 198-219). This 
Caius says that Paul’s tomb (or trophy) was on the Ostian 
Way and Peter’s on the Vatican Hill, where the churches built 
in honour of the two Apostles stand to this day. 

It is unnecessary here to dwell more fully on the evidence 
of the early churchmen; all agree that Peter and Paul worked 
together in Rome, and were martyred at the same time in 
the days of Nero—Paul as a Roman citizen, by the execu- 
tioner’s sword, and Peter on the cross. There is no other 


234 


Petrie DAC Re ye eridles lec ahaye oO) Ko Salen -P ATU 


story to compete with this, and no further details are sup- 
plied by any competent authority concerning the death of 
Paul. No historian, however critical of this evidence, can 
deny its existence, nor can the most credulous pietist assert 
that there is any more real information than has been given. 
Both must admit that it was accepted by the Christian Church, 
and was not merely the local belief of that of Rome, and 
can reject it as inadequate or accept it as sufficient. 

The association of Peter and Paul is confirmed by the an- 
cient liturgies. When, at the Eucharist, the greatest saints 
of old were commemorated, the Twelve Apostles were always 
mentioned; and Paul was admitted to this company, his name 
Bice nextato) Peter's atythe headyvoty the (list); Dhissis 
found, not only as might be expected in the Roman Liturgy 
but also in the ancient ones of the remote East. 

The testimony of archeology confirms that of literature 
and prayer. At a very early date gems were cut with the 
faces of Peter and Paul and have been discovered in Rome: 
some of these may go back to the second century. From the 
middle of the third century or even earlier the bodies of the 
two Apostles were guarded with great care, and removed 
from their resting places if there was any danger of their 
being molested. Yet these precious relics do not seem to have 
been credited with miracles, nor to have been the centre of 
a cultus. It is certain, however, that the Roman Church 
claimed to possess them. 

Among the Apocryphal Acts there is an “Acts of Paul” 
which is quite early. Tertullian, in 210 or earlier, says that 
he knew the book and that it was by a presbyter who was 
deposed for forging it. In these Acts, evidently composed 
about a.p. 160, there is an account of Paul’s martyrdom 
which exists in two Greek copies, an incomplete Latin version, 
and in Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic and Slavonic. It was, there- 
fore, once very popular and widespread. It was read at the 
commemoration of the Apostle’s death. 

It will be noticed that the writer was evidently acquainted 


235 


SATIN GD) (PAUL 


with Acts and with the Pauline Epistles, a noteworthy fact, 
as will be seen when we come to discuss this story. 

There were, according to these “Acts,” awaiting Paul at 
Rome both Luke from Galatia and Titus from Dalmatia. Paul 
on his arrival hired a grange outside Rome, and with the 
brethren he taught the truth there, and many of Cesar’s 
household came and believed with joy. 

Patroclus, a cup-bearer of Nero, listened to Paul, sitting, 
like Eutychus, in a window and fell down dead. Paul re- 
stored him to life; but not before Nero had heard of his 
death. Patroclus appeared before the Emperor and declared 
how Christ had raised him. As he and Nero’s chief men 
confessed Christ, they were imprisoned and ordered to be 
slain. 

Paul is brought before Czsar, and declares that he and 
his friends are levying soldiers for Christ throughout the 
world. If Nero will repent he will be saved; for God will 
surely fight against this world with fire. Paul is ordered to 
be beheaded, the rest of the prisoners to be burned. 

Then there was a period of respite; and Nero sees Paul 
once more and confirmed his sentence. Paul says he will 
appear to Nero after he has been beheaded. 

Longus the prefect and Cestus the centurion, deeply 
touched by Paul’s teaching, beg that they may be saved from 
the fire that God is going to send upon the world. At his 
execution Paul prayed a long time, and conversed with the 
fathers in the Hebrew tongue. When the executioner (specu- 
lator) struck off his head, milk is said to have spurted on 
the cloak of the soldier. Paul naturally is recorded to have 
appeared to Nero, who ordered the other prisoners to be 
released. 

The next day Paul is found by Longus and Cestus praying 
between Luke and Titus. In the end, Luke and Titus bap- 
tize the two Romans, “giving them the seal.” Meagre and 
unsatisfactory as the result, not merely of a hasty sketch, 
but of the profoundest research into information as to the last 


236 


REGEN DA RW HislO Rive 0 Eo Sl.5 PAU 


years of St. Paul must be, one point has not received the 
attention which I venture to think it deserves. 

The main theme in the Acts of the Apostles, when speaking 
of Paul, is the inveterate malice with which the Jews pursued 
him. Wherever he went they sought his life, generally by ac- 
cusing him of being a seditious person, dangerous to the existing 
government. On all occasions the authorities proved his best 
friends—Gallio, the Asiarchs at Ephesus, Claudius Lysias at 
Jerusalem, Felix, Festus, and Agrippa at Cesarea, all refused 
to gratify the popular demand for his life. One would ex- 
pect that the legends which endeavour to supplement the Acts 
and the Pauline Epistles would have done so by continuing 
the story of the enmity of the Jews. But they rather take 
the keynote suggested in Acts xxviii, that with Paul’s arrival 
in Rome the enmity of the Jews for some reason or another 
cooled down, and that they dropped the prosecution alto- 
gether. The legends of both Peter and Paul agree that these” 
great Christian leaders perished at the hands of the heathen; 
and that the Jews had nothing do with their fate. They 
both died, not as renegade Jews, but as Christians in whom 
the Jews took no interest whatever. The matter is not easy 
to explain and no solution can be offered, unless that under 
Nero Christianity was recognized as a new and unlicensed 
religion, and its professors could not, as in Acts, claim that 
they were after all only worshipping the God of their fathers. 

In Romans Paul had declared his intention of visiting Spain, 
and Clement I, says he went “to the limit of the West,” by 
which that country is supposed to be meant. But no tradition 
that I know of connects the evangelization of Spain with St. 
Paul, this is the more strange as Paul had distinctly told 
the Romans that he hoped to visit Spain; and, as there was 
certainly much intercourse between the cities of Asia and 
those of the peninsula, his desire to go there is not surprising. 

The idea that Paul visited Britain cannot be seriously en- 
tertained, especially when the condition of the island at the 
time is considered. For a century after the invasions by 
Julius Cxsar in B. c 55-4, the Romans attempted nothing; 


237 


STAV TING Tyee Ole 


but, during the principate of Claudius, Aulus Plautius was 
sent thither in a.p. 42, and the southern Britons accepted 
the Roman yoke. Claudius himself visited Britain in a. p. 
44. Then came the rebellion of Caractacus who was con- 
quered, brought to Rome, and pardoned by Claudius in a. p. 
51. In a.p. 62 the intolerable oppression of the conquerors 
provoked a formidable rising under Boadicea, the injured 
queen of the Iceni. Under such circumstances the visit of 
Paul or any missionary of the Apostolic age is well-nigh 
unthinkable. It is, however, remarkable that there is only 
one great ancient church outside Rome dedicated to St. Paul 
alone in the world, and that is in Britain. Not that St. Paul’s 
Cathedral in London was due to any tradition of the Apostle 
having preached there: still the coincidence is curious and de- 
serves attention. 

There is, however, a theory which has at least the merit 
of ingenuity, that Paul had converts of distinction in Rome 
who were connected with Britain. The wife of Aulus Plau- 
tius was Pomponia Grecina, who after the death of her friend 
Julia, the daughter of Drusus, the son of Tiberius, is said 
to have been distinguished by wearing mourning and by the 
sadness of her countenance. In a.p. 57 she was accused of 
practising “foreign superstition,” but Aulus Plautius was al- 
lowed to try her before his family, and she was acquitted. 
It has been supposed that the “foreign superstition” with 
which Pomponia was charged was Christianity. Cogidunus, 
a petty king of Britain who had welcomed the Roman invasion, 
assumed, according to an inscription discovered in Britain at 
Chichester in 1728, the names of Tiberius Claudius. One 
of Aulus Plautius’ ablest officers was named Pudens, and, 
according to the satirist Martial, married a Briton named 
Claudia. At the end of II Timothy, Pudens, Linus and 
Claudia send salutations; and it has been asserted that the 
first and last are those named by Martial and that they became 
Christians under the influence of Pomponia Grecina. No 
early tradition confirms this theory. 

The alleged friendship and correspondence between Paul 

238 


Pe Ea DAR YES: lL OuRove OWS be PA WiL 


and Seneca was believed in in the days of St. Jerome (427) 
but despite a certain similarity between the Apostle’s and 
Seneca’s written sentiments on human rights there are few 
reasons for accepting the tradition or the letters. 

The connection between Peter and Paul is, as has been 
shown, confirmed by primitive tradition, though practically 
nothing of the kind is suggested in the New Testament, 
according to which Peter and Paul did not meet again after 
their dispute at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11-14). It is, however, 
noteworthy that only once according to the best manuscripts 
does Paul call the Apostle Peter (Gal. ii. 7-8), but uses his 
Aramaic name of Cephas. In Acts Peter plays the part of the 
leader of the Church, and it was he who first preached the 
Gospel to a Gentile in the person of Cornelius. After Herod’s 
persecution and the execution of James the brother of John, 
and the release of Peter from prison, no more is related of 
him except his speech in favour of the mission of Barnabas and 
Saul to the Gentiles in Asia Minor and Syria (Acts xv. 7f). 
In the chapters in Acts relating to Paul’s subsequent life the 
name of Peter is not so much as mentioned. According to 
the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul went to Jerusalem to see 
Cephas three years after his conversion (Gal. i. 18); the 
leaders of the Church recognized that the Gospel to the 
Gentiles had been committed to Paul, whilst Peter was given 
the circumcision (Gal. i1. 7), and James, Cephas, and John, 
“who seemed to be pillars,” gave Paul and Barnabas the 
right hand of fellowship (Gal. ii. 9). Paul, Barnabas and 
Cephas then went to Antioch where the vacillation of Cephas 
drew down the rebuke of Paul (Gal. ii. 11). In I Corinthians 
Paul says that some in the Church claimed to belong to Cephas, 
from which it is inferred that Peter had visited Corinth (I 
Cor. i. 12). Paul also says that Cephas and the brethren 
of the Lord were accompanied on their missionary journeys 
by their wives (I Cor. viii. 5). After this, the name of 
Peter or Cepkas never occurs in any Epistle: not in the salu- 
tations in Romans xvi; not even in the Pastoral Letters. In 
the Second Epistle of Peter, a letter which is almost cer- 


239 


SAIN De beArGeks 


tainly of the post-apostolic age, Peter says of “our beloved 
brother Paul” that his letters are hard in places to understand 
(II Peter iii. 15)—a sentiment in which every student must 
concur. And this is absolutely all. 

Yet the unanimous testimony is that the two great Apostles 
codperated in Rome and were martyred there; and it 1s im- 
possible entirely to disregard the evidence, especially as our 
knowledge as to their doings is extraordinarily scanty. The 
strange thing is that Paul always takes the second place, 
and never was regarded in early days at Rome or elsewhere 
as of equal importance with Peter. How significant this is will 
appear here after we discuss and compare the influence of Paul 
on the mass of mankind with that of his fellow-labourer. 


2.40 


CoC ASE TRE ARUN x: | 
THE DOCTRINE OF ST. PAUL 


In the last chapter the popularity of Paul as an Apostle was 
shown to be far less than we might reasonably expect; but 
the influence he exercised upon Christian thought is almost 
immeasurable. He is, in all probability, the earliest con- 
tributor to the New Testament, and we must consider what 
the rest would have been without him. The Third Gospel, 
the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and, 
it has been generally supposed, the First Epistle of Peter, 
are the work of men who belonged to his school. In addi- 
tion to this there are so-called Johannine books. The Fourth 
Gospel and I John emanate from an author, whether John 
the son of Zebedee or another of his name, who understood 
Paul even better than some of his most intimate followers. 

Before, however, attempting to estimate the influence ex- 
ercised by the Apostle, it is necessary to undertake the diffi- 
cult task of stating in a few words what his view of the 
Person and work of Jesus.was; and to do this it is abso- 
lutely necessary to clear the mind of all presuppositions, and 
to fix the attention solely on Paul’s actual words, interpreting 
them with reference to nothing but the circumstances of his 
Neen 

The master motive which dominated all the acts and words 
of Paul was devotion to Jesus as his living Lord and Master. 
To him everything else was subordinate. Other Apostles may 
have proclaimed Jewish monotheism and the sovereignty of 
God, the importance of which Paul realized to the full. But 
his message in his own words was, “Jesus Christ and Him 
crucified” (I Cor. i. 23), who died, nay rather, is risen (Rom. 


241 


SA Wena Uale 


viii. 34). Realizing the absolute supremacy of the Christ, 
as the Wisdom and Power of God, Paul saw that His Gospel 
was intended for the whole world, and he had the insight 
to perceive that this would not be humanly possible if the 
Gentiles were allowed to become Jewish proselytes on joining 
the Church. Thus in Galatians he definitely forbids his con- 
verts from Heathenism to accept circumcision. The use of the 
present participle is significant. Paul is addressing his Gentile 
converts, not Jews, “Behold I Paul say unto you that if ye be 
circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing” (Gal. iv. 2). 
Nothing can be more explicit than this and it is ttle wonder 
that it provoked opposition. 

This much, therefore, is clear: Paul was obsessed by his 
faith in the supreme importance of Christ, and would allow 
nothing to interpose between Him and the believer; and, in 
consequence of this conviction, he unflinchingly maintained 
the principle that the Gentiles must come to Christ—not 
through Judaism, that is through the Law, but through faith 
in Him. 

These two considerations must never be absent in an en- 
deavour to explain what, wrongly I think, we call the theology 
of St. Paul. For Paul was not a theologian in the ordinary 
sense, if it means a man who after carefully examining the 
belief of his age by the light of its Scripture and tradition, 
explains or reduces it to some formal creed or system. Paul 
was a prophet, who considered that he had received his mis- 
sion and his doctrine by direct communion with God through 
Christ. When he says he received his Gospel not from man 
but “by revelation of Jesus Christ” or “from the Lord” he 
means exactly what he says, as much as when he says, “thus 
say I, not the Lord” (I Cor. vii. 12). His convictions, there- 
fore, are not derived from the ancient Scriptures, but they 
are employed to show that he is supported by their authority. 
This explains much of Paul’s exegesis, and utterly disposes 
of the theory that his docrtines stand or fall with the argu- 
ments he deduces from the Old Testament. His teaching is 
based on what one may call his prophetic knowledge. 

242 


plebie L) OG Rn aNG te eae Se PAL UL Io 


But Paul was a Hebrew prophet, like those of the Old 
Testament. It is not too much to say that he loved not only 
his nation but its law, which he accepted as the revelation of 
God’s will, and as such “holy and just and good.” As Jesus 
had said, “Think not that I am come to destroy but to fulfil” 
(Matt. v. 17), Paul reéchoes His words when he says, “Do 
we then make void the law of God through faith? yea we 
establish the law” (Rom. iii. 31). But, great as was Paul’s 
reverence for the Law, his sense of the necessity of Christ was 
greater, and when he realized that the Law stood between the 
Gentile and the full acceptance of Christ, the Law had to be 
sacrificed. 

The two main points of the system as found in the Epistles 
of St. Paul are, his overwhelming conviction of the impor- 
tance of Christ, and the problem of explaining why the Law, 
divine and perfect as he declared it to be, must be rejected 
by his Gentile converts. 

The relation between Paul and Jesus is one of the most 
striking facts; and is as astonishing as it is undeniable. It 
is remarkable, as has been indicated, how few allusions there 
are in the Epistles to the ministry or even to the character 
of Christ. Once, it is true, Paul speaks of “His meekness 
and gentleness (II Cor. x. 1), but he does not mention any 
of His miracles, His acts, or even His Words. The 1m- 
portant things in Paul’s eyes are the Incarnation, the Passion, 
the Resurrection and the Exaltation to God’s right hand. It 
is the same in all the creeds, the Nicene, the Apostles, and 
all the different forms they assumed. It matters not whether 
the creed is put forward by orthodox or Arians. “Born of 
the Virgin Mary” is followed by “suffered under Pontius 
Pilate.” But care must be taken to avoid pressing the argu- 
ment of silence. Paul may have known the facts about the 
Ministry as well as those who framed the creeds. Indeed 
such casual remarks in the Epistles as that to the Corinthians, 
“Be ye imitators of me as I also am of Christ” (I Cor. xi. 1) 
are conclusive that Paul knew something of the human life 
and character of Jesus. Nor could his enthusiasm for his 


24.3 


SAINT) PAUL 


Lord be accounted for unless it rested on more knowledge 
than that of the facts that He was miraculously raised from 
the dead had gone up to heaven, and was about to return 
speedily in glory. The personal devotion to Jesus, shown 
in every line the Apostle writes, must have been based on 
an appreciation of what He had been on earth, and on the 
realization of the sinlessness of His life and character (II 
Goruivan ora). 

To Paul, then, Christ is everything, and his devotion is due 
to conviction and personal experience. “Have I not seen Jesus 
our Lord” (I Cor. ix. 1). “This say I, yet not I but the Lord” 
(I Cor. vii. 12). “I live, yet not I: Christ liveth in me” 
(Gal. ii. 20). He declares that he and all true believers 
have been baptized into Christ’s death; put on Christ” (Gal. 
iii. 27); have risen with Christ (Col. iii. 1); have the spirit 
of Christ (Rom. viii. 9). It is impossible to overestimate 
the fervour of this language, or to suppose that Paul is speak- 
ing of some imaginary creation of his own excited imagina- 
tion. It is a great mistake in psychology to treat the lan- 
guage of the Apostle in a spirit of rationalism; for he was an 
enthusiast, who realized the idea of the close relationship 
in which he stood towards the Master, and a prophet who told 
to man what he had received from the Lord. Despite his 
silence as to the ministry of Jesus, Paul evidently knew 
much of His human life and character. To him “the imita- 
tion of Christ”? meant that of the perfect man. ‘This esti- 
mate of Jesus is shown in the enumeration of what Paul 
calls “the fruit of the Spirit,” as seen in the disposition dis- 
played in a true follower, “Love, joy, peace, long suffering, 
- gentleness, goodness, faith” (Gal. v. 22), in other words, 
the character of Christ as portrayed in the first three Gospels; 
and, if the author of the Third Gospel and the Acts was known 
to Paul, he cannot have been ignorant of the life of Jesus. 

Still, Jesus was to Paul far more than a virtuous man or 
a subject for sentimental idealism. He was the “power of 
God and the wisdom of God” (I Cor. i. 24), the One Being 
in heaven or earth by which the true knowledge of God is 


24.4 


Aertel) © Crl) Re E Nob Chit ssn lee Bea URE 


made possible. Paul does not state this as a theological prop- 
osition and prove what we call the “Divinity of Christ” by 
a carefully thought out chain of reasoning. When he placed 
Christ “far above all heavens that He might fill all things” 
(Eph. iv. 10), he expressed the conviction of all that his 
Lord meant to him, nor did he attempt to define in theologi- 
cal terms the precise relation of the Son to the Father. He 
was content to believe in God and to desire Him, confessing 
that all his knowledge had come directly from Christ. 

Regarding Christ as of such supreme importance, Paul saw 
that the Law of Israel would keep the Gentiles in two ways 
from Christ if they were encouraged to observe it. Nat- 
urally, the obligation of becoming a Jew, which meant enter- 
ing a new community and breaking all ties of family and rela- 
tionship, would deter many Gentiles; but this was not all. 
Experience, and the sound commonsense which Paul for all 
his enthusiasm naturally possessed, must have shown him that 
the Gentiles, if they became Jewish proselytes, would be more 
attracted to the fulfilment of the external precepts of the 
Law than to the obedience to principles demanded by Christ, 
and might be thereby deterred from accepting Him as their 
only Guide and Saviour. It was for this reason that he wrote 
to the Galatians, “I Paul say unto you that if ye be cir- 
cumcised Christ shall profit you nothing.” 

Thus, Paul was confronted by the problem of how he was 
to persuade the Gentile believers that, so far as they were 
concerned, the Law, which he considered to be “holy, just 
and good,” must be rejected by them, if they were to be 
whole-hearted disciples of Jesus Christ. 

To appeal to them on the ground that the observance of 
the Law was intolerable, that it was a yoke, described in 
Peter’s speech at the Council at Jerusalem, “which neither 
we nor our fathers were able to bear” (Acts xv. 10) would 
have been worse than useless. To this the answer might well 
have been, “Heavy as this yoke is, if Christ is all you rep- 
resent Him to be, we are ready to take it upon our shoulders 
and by His help to bear it. Asa Jew you delight in this Law 


24.5 


SA UN P ASW: 


and acknowledge it to be holy, just and good; why then should 
we the Gentile servants of Jesus refuse to obey it?” 

Paul, therefore, took a different line. He declared that 
the Law was not so much burdensome as powerless to save 
any man from the just wrath of God which had been declared 
again “all unrighteousness of men.” What saves is faith 
in Christ by which God justifies, or accepts us as innocent. 

This is the doctrine of “justification by faith” and it has been 
a subject of serious misapprehension because it has been sup- 
posed that “justification” or acquittal from guilt is a sort of 
legal fiction by which God pardons certain privileged human 
beings. Works are contrasted with faith: “works” being con- 
fused with character, which Paul is supposed to contrast un- 
favourably with the merit of accepting certain dogmatic 
propositions. 

This is an absurd travesty of the opinions of Paul, to under- 
stand whom it is necessary that we should remember that in his 
own experience the power of Christ had worked an astonish- 
ing miracle, far more unaccountable to him than any physical 
wonder. The Apostle believed firmly that Jesus, by appearing 
to him and choosing him to do His work, had changed his entire 
character and made him “a new creature.” ‘This was the effect 
of Christ’s work since His coming into the world, the trans- 
forming of men by giving them a new spirit, so that they be- 
come from henceforth free from sin and acceptable to God. 
This was Paul’s theory based on the conviction of his own expe- 
rience and considered by him to be applicable to all who were 
able in the Spirit “to call Jesus the Lord” (I Cor. xii. 3). 

Yet his intensely practical good sense prevented Paul from 
being blinded to actual circumstances by any theory, however 
plausible. Because his Gentile converts fell very far short of 
his expectations, he did not relax his pastoral care for them. 
To use his own words, he called them children, and told them 
“T travail in birth again till Christ be formed in you” (Gal. 
iv. 19). The acceptance of Jesus as the Lord means to Paul 
the transference of man from the slavery of what he calls 
‘the flesh” to the freedom of the “spirit.” It 1s necessary as 

246 


RT Ey DG) ed ae Nel) ae eee DoAr Uahy 


far as possible to see what the Apostle means by “flesh” (sarx). 

In contemporary thought the contrast between the seen and 
the unseen was very strongly felt. In Paul’s own words “the 
things which are seen are temporal but the things which are 
not seen are eternal” (II Cor. iv. 18). To the philosopher 
reality was that which the eye cannot see, nor the tongue de- 
fine, nor the mind comprehend. The visible world was only 
a shadow of the true universe, which is beyond the human 
ken. In addition to this speculative disparagement of the seen, 
there had arisen in the Hellenic world a horror, originating 
in the thought of the evil of all that can be perceived by the 
senses. Matter (Ayle), the material of which the world is com- 
posed, was considered an evil thing holding back the unseen 
spirit of the universe as a jailer. Man was a spiritual being, 
held in bondage by his material body. Hence the Orphic ex- 
pression séma séma, t.e., “the body is a tomb.” 

This line of thought is not Hebrew; and assuredly not 
that of the Old Testament, but it could not fail to influence 
Paul as a Hellenist. Yet here, as usual, his commonsense 
and Jewish training restrained him from carrying these the- 
ories to the point of absurdity. He never uses the word Ayle, 
nor teaches that the material world is evil, or the body, as such, 
a tomb; God, though He can only be approached with con- 
fidence through Christ, is not abstract but personal; for Paul’s 
interest is, not the same as that of the Gnostics, which was 
centred in the speculative problem of evil in the world, but 
in the practical one of human sin. 

The “flesh” is, therefore, to Paul humanity with all its in- 
herent infirmity. Still, though he says, “I know that in me 
(that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing” (Rom. vii. 18), 
he does not maintain that man, before he experiences the 
regenerative influence of Christ, is altogether evil. The Jew, 
though he could not attain righteousness, still strove after it. 
Even some heathen, though ignorant, “did by nature the things 
of the law” (Rom. ii. 14). As for Paul himself, he delighted 
the Law of God in his heart but saw that there was another 
law in his flesh which prevented him from paying full obe- 


247 


SAVING Pranks 


dience to the will of God (Rom. vii. 21-23). He does not 
deny that a perfect fulfilment of the Law might render a man 
acceptable to God; but as this is not possible, he affirms that 
the only means of freeing mankind from the bondage of “the 
flesh,” is through Christ. 

The remedy for the condition in which we now are is the 
transference of reliance on the Law to absolute trust and sur- 
render to Christ which is by Paul implied in the word “faith.” 
By this the whole nature of man is changed and he becomes, 
by means of the Spirit, like Christ in character, in goodness, 
in the attainment of immortality. This miracle was wrought 
by the Incarnation and Death of Christ and proved by His 
Resurrection. God sent His Son in the “likeness of the flesh 
of sin” (Rom. viii. 3), meaning thereby that the flesh, which 
was borne by the Son of God, is that which in us is the cause 
of all human weakness and inability to serve God. But the 
Son, by bearing it in his own Person and by putting it to death 
upon the cross, conquered sin; and by suffering death killed 
it so far as He was concerned, not only in Himself, but in all 
who are united to Him by their acceptance of Him as their 
Lord. ‘Thus the miracle of a new creation came about in the 
humanity which Christ had redeemed. A new world came 
into being the old has “‘passed away and all had become new” 
(II Cor. v. 17). The life of this newly born creation was 
the Spirit, who, in place of the Law which could not save 
because it could not be obeyed, became the guide of those who 
received it. In this way the Law was abrogated for those 
who had become Christ’s; it had served its purpose by acting 
as the pedagogue or slave who brought children to their 
school, and as the means of revealing to the world how far it 
had been alienated from God. 

Thus, though in Acts Paul is constantly represented as 
preaching repentance, this word, and even forgiveness, is rare 
in the Epistles, and neither are keynotes to Paul’s system; 
for both imply regret for the past and a desire to amend, fol- 
lowed by pardon, whereas Paul declares acceptance of Jesus 
to be succeeded by an entirely new life in Him, a new creation 

248 


a OC Re iN HG) bee Sie DPA’ UTS 


in which the past is obliterated because the “flesh” which is 
the cause of sin has been destroyed. 

The argument of Paul to prove that the Law was not bind- 
ing on the Gentiles and could not save the believer, Christ 
being the only One who could do this, like those he adduces 
in less important matters, brings into relief the deep spirituality 
of his nature and shows that he was living in a world in which 
the modern man—Paul would call him “carnal” or “fleshly” 
—can have little understanding or sympathy. It is therefore 
pitiful to observe the explanations which have been given of 
his scheme of salvation. 

Intimately bound up with all this is Paul’s alleged interest in 
the sacramental system, of which, through his connection or 
sympathy with the mystery religion of antiquity, he is believed 
by some to be the originator. 

Sacraments are of the highest value to Christian life, as, 
by the simplest of means, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper 
become a means of grace to the recipients, and serve to keep 
in constant memory the most important verities of religion. 
At the same time, if regarded as mechanical or semi-mechanical 
means of obtaining divine forgiveness or favour, they are ca- 
pable of serious abuse. That Paul, with a tendency to underrate 
the things which are seen, should have offered sacraments as 
a substitute for the mystery cults to which his Hellenic con- 
verts had been accustomed, is well-nigh unthinkable. As re- 
gards Baptism, the Christian rite is alluded to in Romans, 
I Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians and Colossians, and the 
doctrine in only three passages “Know ye not that as many of 
us as were baptized unto Christ were baptized unto his death” 
(Rom. vi. 1), addressed to a Church which Paul had not yet 
visited, and assuming that the rite and the doctrine were the 
common property of all believers. “For as many of you as 
were baptized unto Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. iii. 27); 
and “Buried with him in baptism, in which ye rose with him 
through your faith in the energy of God” (Col. ii. 12), the 
last addressed to a Church where Paul was personally un- 
known. If this language bears a superficial resemblance to 


249 


S ALL NSD PACU EL 


that of the cults of heathenism, it is not that of one who has 
introduced the rite or its significance, and it is but a shallow 
foundation on which to build theories of Pauline sacra- 
mentarianism. 

As to the Eucharist, it is well known that it is not so much 
as mentioned in any Epistle except I Corinthians, and there 
only on account of the abuses of the rite at Corinth. Like 
Baptism, this sacrament is assumed to be universal among 
Christians, as emphasizing their essential unity in Christ. 

But if Paul initiated neither of these two great sacraments, 
he certainly laid great stress on what they signify to him, 
namely that in Christ the believer dies and rises to new life 
and that he is constantly built up by communion with his Lord. 
This unity, or rebirth in Christ in all believers, is the main- 
spring of the spiritual and sacramental life of the Apostles. 

One more feature of Paul’s teaching must receive notice. 
The vast fabric of predestination and election has been raised 
upon his Epistle to the Romans. Here again as always we 
must, if we would understand St. Paul, judge him by the cir- 
cumstances of his age. The rejection of the Gospel by Israel, 
and their consequent deprivation of the salvation offered by 
God, was a terrible grief to him. The only solution seemed 
to be the old prophetic belief that if almost all Israel proved 
faithless, a remnant would be saved, and that God knew 
beforehand those to whom he would show mercy. The 
matter 1s to Paul a mystery which causes great sorrow of 
heart; yet only in one Epistle does he enlarge on the subject. 
It was no part of his message to the world. 

This consideration of the doctrine of Paul brings us to the 
manner in which it has been interpreted. Few indeed even 
of the inspired writers of the New Testament really under- 
stood him, and hardly any one as time went on. Yet Paul- 
inism, as it was subsequently understood, became the basis of 
Christian theology, and a constant stimulant of devotion and 
thought. 


250 


GC EVA Pls RaaXOxerT 


EARLY INFLUENCE OF PAUL’S TEACHING 


Attuston has already been made to Paul’s remarkable 
declaration to the Corinthians that even if he had known 
Christ after the flesh “yet now henceforth know we him no 
more.” It 1s necessary here to return to this in order to deter- 
mine the relationship not only of the first Three Gospels to 
Paul, but of Paul to the first Three Gospels. 

The great difficulty is the expression “After the flesh.” 
The Apostle says that, now he realizes that Christ has died 
for all, we must live not for ourselves but for Him who died 
and rose again. Then he continues “So that from this time 
we (does this mean Paul or the believers?) know no man 
after the flesh, even if we knew Christ after the flesh, but now 
we know him no more. So that if any man be in Christ, he is a 
new creation: the old things are past; lo! all have become new” 
(Ii Gorey, 16-19): 

May not this very difficult passage be paraphrased some- 
what thus: After all these wonders, i¢., the death and 
resurrection of Christ and the change they have caused, can 
we estimate any man by our former standard of values? Can 
we even regard Christ’s human life as the important thing, 
now that all is past, and a new creation has come uniting us 
to Him in His risen condition, and giving us reconciliation 
with God through him? This explanation is not one we as 
moderns would agree to; but it is eminently characteristic 
of Paul’s view of the change Christ had wrought. The 
Synoptic Gospels reveal an aspect of Christ’s life different 
from that of Paul; and we cannot be sufficiently thankful that 
the Christian Church has preserved both. 

There is a difference of opinion as to whether the first two 

251 


SAINT PAUL 


evangelists had felt the influence of Paul; but it is but natural 
to expect that Luke would show some traces of the Apostle’s 
teaching. It must be confessed that not many are to be 
found, though the outlook of the Third Gospel is a wide one, 
and partakes of the spirit of Paul. But the relation of the 
Lucan literature (the Gospel and Acts) to Paul is so compli- 
cated a question, that no discussion of it which does not enter 
into an elaborate and careful inquiry into the points at issue 
is worthy of attention. All that can be here attempted is to 
record the general impression of the mind of the writer. 
“Luke” appears to him to be, on the one hand a compiler, 
and on the other an historian with a marked personality of 
his own, as is seen in the use of his authorities; he was prob- 
ably a personal friend and a great admirer of the Apostle 
Paul. Undoubtedly he knew the Gospel according to Mark; 
and it is likely that in writing Acts he translated some Ara- 
maic documents with scrupulous fidelity. But in everything 
he writes, Luke displays his own individuality. He relates 
some event of our Lord’s life clearly with the language of his 
authority in his mind, and yet he gives his narrative a stamp 
of his personality. He rearranges his material in such a way 
as to bring out his idea of how the story should be told, 
with a keen eye to dramatic situation. It is the same when 
dealing with Paul, a man for whose character and achievements 
he has the highest regard. Still, though at times he shows 
great skill in trying to adapt Paul’s thought and language, he 
is not always successful. Possibly, though he knew Paul well, 
appreciated him, and loved him, Luke never really understood 
the workings of his friend’s mind, and perhaps had not him- 
self read the letters which have come down to us. 

From the Lucan writings we pass to a part of the New 
Testament which bears the name of Paul, but cannot be said 
with certainty to come from him. First are the Pastoral 
Epistles, and as far as external testimony goes, no writings 
of Paul’s have greater claim to genuineness. The letters to 
Timothy and Titus were by no means allowed to fall into the 
background, but were widely read from the earliest times, 

252 


RAR Yi LN bly UN; GB Ov By PeAcUhT: 


and served as manuals on which the law of the church was 
based. No list of Paul’s writings omits them; nor does any 
ancient writer question that they are genuinely his. And, as 
has already been indicated, they contain several personal 
notices which are unintelligible if something written by Paul 
has not been incorporated into them. 

The interesting point here is that the Pastoral Epistles are 
evidently, if not by Paul, by some one who was very anxious 
to represent his teaching, but has only partially succeeded in 
doing so. The argument that the Church organization 
sketched in them belongs to a more advanced period of de- 
velopment has little weight, because Paul had undoubtedly 
great capacity for putting a Church he had founded on a 
stable basis, and legislating for its continuance. It is where 
the writer is trying to introduce Pauline doctrine that he gives 
himself away. To take but a few examples: 


“Now we know that the law is good, if a man uses 
it lawfully, because he knows that a law does not apply 
to a righteous man, but to the lawless and unruly .. . 
and if anything is alien to a healthy doctrine according 
to. the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which 
I have been entrusted” (I Timothy i. 8-11). 


In Romans the Law is certainly not designed for law breakers; 
even with the best intentions a man is unable to keep it per- 
fectly. The passage is Pauline outwardly but scarcely repre- 
sents the spirit of St. Paul. 

Here again is a very beautiful passage; but it is difficult for 
me at least to think that Paul could speak of “a crown of 
righteousness” though the expressions of the rest are studiously 
Pauline: 


“For I am already being poured out (as a drink 
offering) and the time of my departure is at hand. I 
have striven a good strife (as in the stadium) I have 
finished my race, I have kept my faith. For the rest 


253 


SACIN se PeA Gee 


there is stored up for me the crown of righteousness which 
the Lord will give me in that day, and not me only but 
to all who have loved his appearing” (II Timothy 
iv. 6-8).” 


In Titus there is an even more striking example where the 
attempt to reproduce the doctrine of Paul is as evident as is 
the lack of success to do so with exactitude: 


“But after the kindness and the love for man of God 
our Saviour appeared, he saved us, not by works in 
righteousness which we did, but according to his mercy 
by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy 
Spirit, which he poured forth richly through Jesus Christ 
our Saviour, that being made righteous by his grace we 
might become heirs according to hope of everlasting life” 


(Titus ii. 4-7). 


The ideas are unquestionably borrowed from Paul, the 
doctrine is almost the same, and yet the general impression 
must be that there is something which does not seem natural 
to the Apostle, and arouses the critical faculty. In baptism, 
it is true, the believer dies with Christ; but does Paul con- 
nect it with the gift of the Spirit? There is something formal 
about the whole which we do not find in the acknowledged 
Epistles. It is easier to accept the arguments of those who 
would assign these verses to Paul than to banish the feeling 
that somehow they are not his. We may add that the con- 
ception of faith, and of the work of the Spirit, the guarding 
of the “deposit” of faith, the use of the word Saviour, and 
the lack of emphasis on the personal relation to Christ make 
the authorship of these letters doubtful. 

We pass from the Pastoral Epistles to the so-called Epistle 
to the Hebrews, a letter or treatise which was far less readily 
accepted as Paul’s. That it is worthy of the great Apostle 


1 But it must not be forgotten that in I Cor. ix. 25, the Christian athlete strives 
for “an incorruptible crown.” 


254, 


BAR TAY) EN iL WEN CO. 4O4ae “PA UT 


there is no doubt. In its beauty of language, dignity of ex- 
pression, and in some of its outbursts of eloquence, it sur- 
passes anything that Paul has written; in elevation of thought 
it equals the greatest Epistles, and it is little wonder that many 
claimed it as the work of Paul. But the cultured Christian 
scholars of Alexandria saw that the language was not his; 
Origen declared his conviction that God alone knew who was 
the author. The conservative Church of Rome knew about 
the Epistle in the days of Clement—possibly it was addressed 
to Rome—yet did not claim it as Paul’s, and only at a late 
date accepted it as part of the New Testament. Ancient as 
well as modern scholars advanced theories as to its authorship, 
Tertullian in the second or early third century ascribes it to 
Barnabas. Apollos, Luke, Clement, and Priscilla and Aquila, 
have all been suggested on more or less plausible grounds. 
But we may leave the questions of authorship and destination 
aside, our object being to show how like, and yet how unlike, 
Paul’s teaching that of the Epistle to the Hebrews really is. 

The author of Hebrews treats of the same theme on which 
Paul lays so much stress: the reason why the Law is super- 
seded by the Gospel. It is quite simple to cull from the 
Epistle phrases and thoughts to show its connection with the 
Pauline system, as for example, Christ at the right hand of 
Majesty is far above all angels (Heb. 1. 3, 4; cf., Eph. i. 20; 
Col. 1. 16). Christ tastes of death for every man (Heb. 
ii. 9; Rom. v. 1), an idea very common throughout the Pauline 
Epistles; but hardly in the sense of Paul’s undoubted writings 
that we are made partakers of Christ (Heb. ili. 14). Those to 
whom the promise came in the wilderness perished (Heb. iil. 
17-18; cf., I Cor. x. 1-5). These examples can be multiplied; 
but our present concern is how far the Epistle differs from 
Paul in its treatment of different points of the Christian belief 
of the first century. 

One good reason why the subject of the Law is not handled 
in the same manner as in Romans and the other Epistles is 
evidently that the acute stage of Jewish controversy is a thing 
of the past; since there is no hint that the Hebrew Christians 


255 


SeAhAN ele aan Wet 


are trying to persuade their Gentile brethren to observe the 
Law. On the contrary the author is doing his utmost to dis- 
suade his Jewish friends, to whom he is probably writing, 
from going back to their old religion. The Law is no longer 
“holy, just and good,” but unnecessary, because it cannot justify 
or save now Christ has come. It is obsolete, a mere shadow 
which must not any longer be preferred to the substance. For 
a Jewish Christian to continue to be a Jew is of the nature 
of apostasy. The servant of Christ must go forth “without 
the camp bearing His shame” (Heb. xiii. 13). Here the 
author goes far beyond anything Paul has written. Nor is 
the argument against the Law that of Paul, since it turns 
not on the impossibility of fulfilling it so as to obtain justifi- 
cation, but on the transitory character of the entire sacrificial 
system prescribed for the ancient Tabernacle in the wilder- 
ness. The general impression after studying Hebrews is that 
it is worthy of Paul, it does not contradict Paul, but somehow 
it is by one who appreciated but did not fully understand 
Paul’s position. It marks the transition from the Pauline to 
the Johannine literature. 

Before, however, taking the writings bearing the name of 
John, we must turn to the so-called Apostolic Fathers, Bar- 
nabas, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and the Teaching of the 
Twelve Apostles. These may be later in date, but they repre- 
sent a far less developed Christianity than that of the Fourth 
Gospel. 

The Epistle of Barnabas follows, though at an almost un- 
measurable distance, the argument against Judaism advanced 
in the Epistle to the Hebrews: that the Law is to be rejected 
because it is imperfect. It is in truth a marvel of bad exegesis 
and perverse ingenuity. The ceremonial Law given to 
Moses was intended to be regarded as an allegory, which the 
Jews have gone astray by interpreting literally. 

“Barnabas” shows signs of acquaintance with Paul’s writ- 
ings, but none with his spirit; and we need not here trouble 
about his arguments or his curious and grotesque natural his- 
tory. It is sufficient to remark that, like Hebrews, this Epistle 

256 


PARTY INE LU BNC Ey OR) PAUL 


does not declaim against the Law but denounces the Old Tes- 
tament religion generally, which Paul never does. 

Far more interesting is the letter of the Church of Rome 
to the Church of Corinth (I Clement). Here the knowl- 
edge displayed of Paul’s letters is considerable, and several 
are quoted. Naturally most attention is paid to I Corinthians. 
The most noticeable thing is that in I Clement the writer 
uses Paul much as many now do, recognizing its striking 
passages rather than penetrating its meaning. Thus he speaks 
of the faith of Abraham (ch. x), Christ the first fruit of 
the resurrection (ch. xxiv), the body and the members (ch. 
xxxvil), the character of charity (ch. xlix) and the like. In 
short, “Clement” knows Paul but uses him, not for the sake 
of explaining his system, but for purposes of edification, 

In the letters of Ignatius written on his way from Antioch 
to Rome, where he had been condemned to be exposed to the 
wild beasts, there is every sign that the bishop was a diligent 
reader of Paul’s Epistles, and had caught his mode of expres- 
sion. ‘Those who are of the flesh cannot do the things of 
the spirit” (Eph. viii). “Those who do these things after 
the flesh died” (Eph. xvi). “Be changed into the new leaven 
which is Jesus Christ” (Magnesians x). “The assembly of 
principalities seen and unseen (Trallians v). “But I am not 
thereby justified” (Rom. v). “Both in flesh and spirit con- 
firmed in love” (Smyrzansi). It isthe same in the Epistle of 
Polycarp to the Philippians. All this goes to indicate how 
much Paul was read by the next generation, even though his 
theology seems to be ignored. To judge by the numerous 
allusions to them, the Pastoral Epistles were very popular. 

The Gospel according to St. John and the First Epistle 
of John are by some great Christian teacher who neither imi- 
tates the language of Paul nor quotes him, and yet must 
have known and thought much about the teaching we con- 
nect with his name. 

But before the Johannine cycle of literature began, much— 
for we have scarcely any evidence and can only go by con- 
jecture—must have happened since the death of Paul. The 


257 


SUAVTUNG Ly SE AG ia 


Epistle to the Hebrews shows that the controversy with 
Judaism had changed in form. With Paul, the all-important 
matter was whether the Gentiles should observe the Law. 
Apparently the Apostle never even suggested that Jewish 
Christians should shrink from the obligation of doing so; and 
in fighting for Gentile liberty he had to defend the cause of a 
minority. In Hebrews the Gentiles had won the day, and it 
was the religious worship of Judaism that all Christians are © 
called upon to abandon. Ideas respecting the Person and work 
of Jesus had also undergone considerable development. The 
hope that He was the Messiah who would almost immediately 
return, which Paul undoubtedly at one time entertained, 
was gradually being replaced by the belief that He was the 
Lord and Master, from Whom those who believed in Him 
received constant guidance through His Spirit within them. 
The natural result was that Jesus became the divine Lord to 
His servants, though they could not exactly define His “Divin- 
ity,” nor did they probably attempt to reconcile their adoration 
of the Son with the monotheism, which as Jews they held 
as an essential truth. Perhaps this was Paul’s position, despite 
his fervent language about Christ the image of the invisible 
God, far above all principalities and power, in Whom are all 
things, the first born of creation, in Whom all was created 
(Col. i. 15-20). At any rate Paul does not allude to 
Proverbs viii. 22ff. which speaks of Wisdom as God’s assessor 
at the Creation. For, even in his most fervent moods, Paul 
was never a speculative theologian. He felt what Christ 
risen, glorified and exalted meant to him, but he does not 
trouble his converts with abstruse questions, like that of His 
preéxistence. The transition from Paul to John is marked by 
the opening words of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the 
son is identified with the “Wisdom” of the Old Testament 
when it is said that “through Him God made the worlds” 
(or ages) (Heb. i. 2; but see Col. 1. 16). When the Fourth 
Gospel begins with “In the beginning was the Word” and 
goes on to say that the “Word was made flesh,” this lays the 
foundation of all the later Christology of the Church. But 
258 


EARLY INFLUENCE OF PAUL 


though the language is not Pauline the doctrine is the legiti- 
mate outcome of Paul’s belief and teaching (see especially, 
Phil. ui. 5-11; Gal. iv. 4; I Cor. viii. Gyvetcn), 

But a new form of error had arisen since Paul’s time. 
The Apostle had been able to dwell almost solely on the exal- 
tation of his Master in the heavenly places; but now a tendency 
had been manifested to deny that the Christ had really been 
man at all, and it had become necessary “to know Him after 
the flesh” or to lose Him altogether. Hence the message of 
“John” is “Jesus Christ come in the flesh,” and the apostolic 
testimony is “Te that was from the beginning, whom we be- 
held, and our hands actually touched, concerning the word 
of life” (I John i. I-2)—note, however, that in John the 
Spirit confesses the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh, and 
Paul that Jesus is the Lord. It is partly for this reason that 
John wrote a Gospel, a life of Jesus, highly idealized, it is true, 
but at the same time insisting on the reality of the Incarnation, 
mentioning the weariness of Jesus as he sat by the well of 
Sychar (John iv. 6), and even his thirst on the cross (John 
xix. 28). This had a very important influence on the subse- 
quent development of Christian doctrine. 

As to the view of regeneration John and Paul are substan- 
tially in agreement. John says that the entry into the King- 
dom of God is only possible after a new birth by “Water and 
the spirit” (John iti. 5). A man must be born “from above,” 
the difference between flesh and spirit is strongly emphasized. 
We have found the same doctrine of a new creation in Paul. 
Another correspondence between the teachings of Paul and 
John, with however characteristic differences, is the theory that 
all who have put on Christ are free from sin. “Every one,” 
says John, “who remaineth in Him doth not sin” (I John iti. 
6), “Every one who is born of God doeth not sin, because a 
seed remains in him, and he cannot sin because he hath been 
born of God” (I John iii. 9); with this we may compare Paul?s 
doctrine that when a man is crucified with Christ he has died 
to sin and is freed (Jz. “Sustified”) from it. Yet Paul, as has 
been shown, as well as John recognizes that even Christian 


259 


SATN WD SPA Ll 


men are liable to sin, only John distinguishes between sins 
which can be pardoned, “sins not unto death” and sins “unto 
death,” and dwells on the power of intercessory prayer for 
fallen brethren (I John v. 16-17). 

The attitude towards Judaism is different in the two litera- 
tures—Paul is proud of being a Jew: his attitude to his country- 
men, not only as represented in Acts but in his Epistles, notably 
Romans and Ephesians, is conciliatory; but in John “the Jews” 
are the enemies of Christ. This is the more remarkable 
because “John,” whoever he may have been, is as obviously a 
Jew as Paul. Yet already the breach is complete, a man 
must choose between Judaism and Christianity. One of the 
severest diatribes of Jesus is addressed “to the Jews which 
believed on Him” (John viii. 31ff.); and this astonishing 
description of them can only be accounted for by supposing that 
the Evangelist had in mind those who accepted Jesus in his 
day, and yet remained to all intents and purposes Jews. 
Against these Paul would have uttered no word of reproach, 
unless they had infringed on the liberty of the Gentile believ- 
ers in Jesus. 

It may be permissible to hazard the suggestion that Paul 
failed in securing one great object of his life. He had 
exalted Christ to the highest place in Heaven; he had made 
Christianity accept the all sufficiency of the Master; he had 
secured the Gentiles an assured place in the new Kingdom; 
he had freed them from the yoke of the Law. But he had 
not kept, as he had so earnestly striven after, Jewish and 
Gentile believers together. The Church had parted, despite 
all his efforts, from the Synagogue and was becoming if not 
entirely Hellenic, for a strong Hebraic element was found 
in it, almost entirely Gentile. The believers of Hebrew 
ancestry became emphatically Christian; and the followers of 
James, who acknowledged the Lord Jesus Christ and yet prac- 
tised the Law, became a sect increasingly obscure, and finally 
outlawed as heretical. 

In the great disputes of the fourth century, regarding the 
relation of the Son to the Father, the great proofs from the 

2.60 


PARDO YOUNE DWN CE Oi. RA tits 


New Testament are taken less from the words of Jesus Him- 
self than from Paul, Hebrews, and John (Col. i. I-14, 15-20; 
Heb. 1.; John i. 1-18). These passages are the foundation of 
the accepted and official creed of the Church from the fourth 
century onwards. 


261 


CURA RDS THEO SR eo BLL 
INFLUENCE OF PAUL IN LATER HISTORY 


WHEN the greater part of what we know as the New 
Testament was being recognized as the Christian Scriptures, 
the Epistles of Paul were among the first books to be collected 
and declared authoritative. They were known “par excel- 
lence”? as “The Apostle.” 

But despite this fact the enemies of Paul were almost as 
active and bitter as they had been in his lifetime, and if the 
Catholic Church called him “the Apostle,” the early sects saw 
in him the enemy of the true apostles, especially Peter. The 
ancient believers in Jesus, who had observed the Law whilst 
accepting Him as the Christ, survived the destruction of 
Jerusalem but with greatly diminishing importance, falling 
under the suspicion of the new rabbinical schools of Judaism, 
and being looked coldly on by the rapidly advancing Gentile 
Church. As Ebionite Gnostics they began to be ranked as 
heretics, and they showed their hostility to Paul, whom they 
regarded as responsible for all their misfortunes. ‘They seem 
to have found voice for their grievances in a literature circu- 
lated under the name of the semi-mythical Clement of Rome, 
a disciple of Peter and Barnabas. Peter, however, acts under 
the direction of James, the bishop (?) of Jerusalem, to whom 
he has to report his missionary progress. But Paul already 
bore too honoured a name to be openly attacked by any Chris- 
tians, however opposed to his doctrine, and it has been sup- 
posed that he is concealed under the name of the great ad- 
versary of Peter Simon Magus, whom Peter and John had 
found among the Samaritans, and had denounced for his im- 
pudent attempt to purchase from them the power of imparting 
the gift of the Spirit. 

262 


PAUL’S LATER INFLUENCE 


In the middle of the nineteenth century this gave rise to the 
famous theory of the school of Tiibingen that there were two 
Churches, a Petrine and a Pauline, and that these agreed in 
the second century to combine. Suggestive as this idea is, 
it is not now generally held, depending, as it does, on the view 
that Acts was written with the object of uniting the two rival 
Christian parties in one Catholic Church. In the opinion 
of the present writer Acts was intended primarily to relate the 
course of events, and designed to be historical rather than 
apologetic, though naturally the author had views of his own 
as to what he should tell or omit. The result is a fairly 
straightforward narrative, which in the absence of all 
other material except the Pauline Epistles, must be accepted 
as our only direct historical record. 

The Clementine literature which consists of the Recogni- 
tions and the Homilies has a long account of a dispute between 
Peter and Simon at Laodicea in which there are indications 
that the writer means Simon to be intended for Paul. But the 
opinions attached are not those of the Apostle but rather of his 
heretical followers. Still his knowledge of Jesus through a 
vision is unfavourably contrasted with Peter’s intimacy with 
Him for a year on earth, and there is little doubt that the 
author of the Homilies, or of the literature from which these 
are derived, had Paul in his mind. 

This obscure indication of antagonism to Paul on the part of 
the Judaizing heretics is in contrast with the open admiration 
for his teaching, expressed in an exaggerated form by the 
heretic Marcion of Sinope on the Black Sea. The appearance 
of Marcion in the second century is a remarkable episode 
in early Christianity, and though we only know of him by 
hostile testimony, he must have been a man of no common 
earnestness of purpose, possessed of remarkable critical in- 
sight. He made the first serious attempt to understand Paul, 
and his errors were due to the common practice of pushing 
the words of a great teacher to their supposed extreme logical 
conclusion, without regard to the circumstances under which 
they were uttered. Thus Marcion misinterprets Paul’s con- 

263 


5 ALDIN: Tia AsUate 


ciliatory attitude to the Law, that it was imperfect because of 
man’s weakness, by making it so inferior to the Gospel 
preached by the Apostle that it could not come from the God 
revealed in Christ. Thus Jesus does not fulfil the Law, but 
abolishes it. Again the Christ proclaimed by Paul was not 
the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament, who came as the 
Son of God “in the fullness of the time” (Gal. iv. 4), but a 
Christ sent to save the world by a God of love who was very 
different from the just though limited God of the Jewish 
Scriptures. Marcion’s mistaken view of what Paul means by 
“the flesh” led him into the “docetic” error of declaring 
that Christ’s appearance on earth was merely fantastic, and 
denying that he had a human body at all. Yet, despite his 
errors and misconceptions, Marcion caught somewhat of the 
spirit of Paul, his trust in the love of God, his belief in the 
value of the things unseen, and his uncompromisingly earnest 
morality. He was in some sense a Protestant before Protes- 
tantism, a critic before the days of modern advanced scholar- 
ship, and at least made a serious attempt to penetrate the 
meaning of the Apostle. 

In the East attention was paid to Paul’s Christology, the 
Church being mainly interested in the doctrine of the Trinity, 
but the less speculative West suddenly tackled the more prac- 
tical problem of how divine grace saved fallen man. This was 
mainly due to one of the profoundest theologians the Church 
has produced, whose influence dominated the Middle Ages and 
inspired the leaders of the Protestant revolution—St. Augus- 
tine, bishop of Hippo Regius in Africa (b. 354; d. 429). In 
one respect Augustine resembled Paul, that he was converted 
to Christianity after a severe mental struggle. He, therefore, 
with Paul, believed that God had called him to His service 
selecting him from his fellow men by a miracle of grace. 
This made both these great men feel the importance of the 
truth that God called from the human race certain instruments 
to do the work He required of them, and that the favour He 
showed to these individuals was due to no merit of their own 
but to God’s good pleasure. For this reason Augustine when 

264 


PAUL?S;LAT ER VINELCUENCSH 


he became a Christian devoted great attention to the teaching 
of Paul, especially as it affected grace, free-will, human merit 
and God’s foreknowledge. 

Augustine was drawn into controversy on these mysterious 
subjects by the criticisms of two British monks at Rome, 
Pelagius and Celestius, men highly regarded for their saintly 
and austere lives, who heard with dismay that Augustine was 
teaching that man was not a responsible agent but a mere 
instrument of God’s will, and that our actions are determined 
by the eternal purpose of God. In opposition to this doc- 
trine Pelagius declared that it was in the power of every man 
to save himself by obeying God, and that, if he chose, he 
could fulfil the commandments. Augustine, at this time a 
bishop in Africa, and the most influential man in the whole 
Western Church, regarded the teaching of Pelagius as sub- 
versive of the entire Christian system by its denial of the 
need of divine grace. He naturally supported his views by an 
appeal to St. Paul, dwelling on the natural corruption of 
all humanity which shared in the fall of Adam and the penalty 
of his disobedience. Thus all men are born in sin and cannot 
turn to God except by His special grace. The very infant at 
the time of birth is subject to the just wrath of God, by 
reason of his having inherited sin and having been born in 
it. God in His infinite wisdom has chosen those whom He 
will save, hence predestination is a part of the system of 
Augustine, based on his reading of Paul. 

The Eastern Church which had always upheld the primitive 
belief in the freedom of the will at first was not disposed to 
condemn Pelagius and his energetic friend Celestius, but ulti- 
mately supported Augustine, though it never troubled itself 
much about the whole question. But it was otherwise with 
the West, where Augustine was regarded as the greatest 
authority among the Fathers. In one form or another the 
question was constantly being raised, whether we are saved 
through Christ by obedience to the teaching of the Church, or 
by divine election. The great reverence in which both Paul 
and Augustine were held could not settle the dispute; for 

265 


STARE IN LMT Oe by 


men felt that the unconditional acceptance of predestination 
was subversive of morality, although the most uncompromising 
teachers of the doctrine showed a noble inconsistency not only 
in the strictness of their lives but in their works of charity 
among men. Yet so absorbing was the interest in the ques- 
tion how and why God saves His elect, that the doctors of 
Islam, for all its fatalism, were divided upon it. 

The next recrudescence of Paulinism appeared in the 
seventh century in one of the most remarkable movements 
which powerfully affected the Eastern Church, and ultimately 
spread its influence westward. The so-called “Paulician 
heresy” presents many complicated problems. ‘That it was 
a heresy is unquestionable in so far that it denied the doc- 
trine of the Church on such fundamental points as the nature 
of the Incarnation and the Divinity of Christ. What, however, 
concerns us is how the Paulicians, in their undoubted endeavour 
to reform the already corrupted Church by returning to primi- 
tive conditions and beliefs, turned to the Epistles of Paul. 

The founder of the sect was Constantine of Mananalis, 
who, it is suggested, may have been a Marcionite, but if so 
it is strange that the turning point of his life was a gift of two 
volumes of the New Testament by a deacon who had been 
hospitably entertained by him, after having been freed from 
captivity under the Moslems, in whose territory Constantine 
lived out of the reach of the intolerant government of Con- 
stantinople. Under the influence of his studies of the New 
Testament Scriptures, Constantine became an active missionary 
in A. D. 657. He travelled northwards and entered Roman 
territory in a. p. 684. He had assumed the name of Silvanus, 
the companion of Paul (but see also I Peter v. 12) and his 
sect received the name of Paulicians about this time. Con- 
stantine Silvanus was captured and placed before a line of his 
disciples, who were ordered to stone him to death. All refused 
but the traitor Justus, who had been adopted as a son. The 
place of this martyrdom was long known by the Greek name 
of Sorus = the Heap. Simeon, the prosecuting official, was 
converted by Constantine’s patience and was himself burned 


266 


PAUL’S LATER INFLUENCE 


near the scene of his master’s death, a.p. 690. The name 
Paulician was given to the sect by its opponents, and there- 
fore cannot mean “followers of Pauli the Apostle.” Most 
likely it signified that it was allied to the heresy of Paul of 
Samosata, a bishop of Antioch who had been condemned in 
A. D. 269 for declaring that Jesus was 2 man whose virtue had 
caused Him to be “adopted” as God’s Son. But as the Pau- 
licians accepted the name, they doubtless considered themselves 
the followers of St. Paul. Sergius, the second great leader, 
called himself after Paul’s disciple Tychicus. 

The Paulicians became a sort of oriental Protestants, foes 
to the excessive powers of the priesthood, advocates of a 
simpler form of worship, deniers of the claim of the Virgin 
Mary to the devotion that was increasingly paid to her. They 
were subjected to fearful persecutions, and rose in rebellion 
against the Roman Church and State as represented in Con- 
stantinople. It was only after much long and bloody fighting 
that they were subdued. But their views spread westward 
first to Bulgaria, then to North Italy, finally to Southern 
Gaul, where the warriors of the West suppressed the heresy 
in the Albigensian War, and the Church rooted out their heresy 
by the creation of the Inquisition. 

The noteworthy point to us is that when this far-reaching 
protest against the growing sacerdotalism of the Church made 
its appearance, it was attributed by its opponents to the study 
of the writings of St. Paul, and naturally to a misapprehension 
of his meaning. Nevertheless it is significant how frequently 
when men have felt the burden of priestly pretensions and 
desired liberty they have turned to the Apostle of the Gen- 
tiles. The powerful influence of St. Augustine made the 
Church in the West strongly inclined to accept the doctrine 
of human inability to turn to God, of the need of grace, and 
also of predestination. This can be easily seen by reading 
some of the ancient collects still in use. But the Church by 
its regularized discipline, and the way in which it encouraged 
the laity to believe in the claims of its priesthood alone to 
dispense salvation, had brought about a general belief that if 

267 


SAIN RUA are 


a man satisfied the clergy he would be fortified against the 
terrors of the future world. This led to serious abuses which 
were recognized on all sides; and when reformers like Wyclif 
arose they turned to Paul and made salvation depend on the 
will of God alone, distinguishing between those whom God 
had foredetermined to save or punish. ‘Thus the Reforma- 
tion was in a sense a return to Pauline principles. 

There is a superficial resemblance between the Christianity 
of the sixteenth century and the Judaism in the days of Paul. 
The complicated scholastic philosophy had its parallel in the 
traditionalism of the rabbinical schools; the worldly, corrupt 
and avaricious priesthood of the last days of medizvalism had 
its counterpart in the high priestly clique which ruled at Jeru- 
salem; the innumerable observances, imposed on the laity by 
the clergy, were not altogether unlike the ceremonial ob- 
servances of the Christian Judaizers, who, as Paul notes, 
“did not themselves keep the Law,” but tried to burden the 
Gentile converts. ‘Thus when men desired to break with the 
corruptions of the past they turned from the Schoolmen to the 
writings of St. Paul; and not only did a potential “heretic,” 
like Luther, but divines as orthodox as the Englishman Colet 
began to study and lecture on Paul without the aid of the tra- 
ditional interpretations. The doctrine that we are saved by 
faith in Christ alone, on which Luther laid so much emphasis, 
was by no means peculiar to him; for many who refused to 
follow him in his revolt against the old Church appreciated 
its importance. Yet, as has been indicated in our discussion 
of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul himself foresaw that his 
doctrine was capable of being made an excuse for lawlessness 
if misinterpreted, as Luther himself learned by bitter expe- 
rience. Yet probably no truth was advanced which did more 
to liberate man from an intolerable imposture, by directing his 
attention from a venal hierarchy’s delusive promises to free 
him from the penalty of sin, to Christ the sole Mediator. 
At least Luther’s doctrine of salvation by faith alone killed 
the scandal of the sale of indulgences and opened the way to 
a mental freedom of which the world had long been deprived. 

268 


PAUL Se DAVE RIND UE N CH 


Calvin, who led the other great wing of the Reformers in 
attacking the Church, made the predestinarian side of Paul’s 
teaching more conspicuous. It is but just to remember that 
Calvin’s theology is wrongly supposed to be the product of a 
man naturally narrow and severe. On the contrary Calvin 
was, like Paul and Augustine, led to the conclusion that his 
call had been a miracle for which he could only account by the 
belief that it was part of the eternal purpose of God. And 
it is remarkable that the Pauline doctrine on this deep subject, 
whether misapprehended or not, has been the means of build- 
ing up one of the strongest types of Christian character, capable 
of heroic efforts in the cause of righteousness. 

The opponents of the Monastery of Port Royal declared 
“Paul begat Augustine, Augustine Calvin, Calvin Arnaud 
and his brethren.” The so-called Jansenist movement which 
distracted the Church was a revolt against the alleged defects 
of the party of the Jesuits, dominant in France. In the end, 
the Jansenists, who had no connection whatever with the 
Protestants, were condemned by Rome not so much for their 
opinions, but because they stood more for personal than for 
authoritative religion, for the Pauline, rather than the Petrine 
spirit. In more recent times the Evangelical party in Eng- 
land, under entirely different circumstances, has occupied a 
somewhat similar position. 

By a strange irony of Fate, religion as taught by Paul has 
repeatedly begun as an assertion of liberty, but has usually 
ended by being hardened into some form of dogmatism. This 
is, I venture to assert, in part due to the assumption that his 
Epistles are documents designed for men of every age and 
under all conditions, and not letters directed to the needs of 
different little newly founded Christian communities each with 
difficulties peculiar to itself. In addition to this, despite some 
obscure passages, Paul’s letters have a certain clarity which 
gives the impression of a logical consistency, more apparent 
than real. This is heightened by the masterly analysis of some 
of the letters provided by the great scholars of the past, which 
has affected both the admirers and the detractors of St, Paul. 

2.69 


S AGUNG As 


Those who accept him as inspired, in the usual sense of the 
word, have seen in his writings a scheme of salvation brought 
to perfection by a systematic theologian, and have often paid 
more attention to the arguments by which he supports the great 
principles he maintained than to the principles themselves. 
On the other hand Paul’s opponents have seen in him a harsh 
dogmatist, and have made him responsible for all the con- 
clusions posterity has deduced from his words. Thus it has 
come to pass that in our day, when a reaction has set in against 
the excessive dogmatism of the past, Paul has been regarded 
with increasing disfavour and the value of his work over- 
looked. 

What is needed to restore Paul to his right place in Chris- 
tian thought is a historical study of his work and writings, 
viewing both in the light of circumstances of the age. His 
students are faced with the difficult task of endeavouring to 
go back to the first century, and to discover under what cir- 
cumstances he opposed the Judaism of the time. They have 
to realise the nature of his great struggle with Judaic Chris- 
tianity in the first days of the Church. They have to place 
themselves in the position of the Apostle in such a community 
as the earliest Corinthian Church, to estimate the profound 
wisdom and large-hearted love with which he faced the prob- 
lems with which Paul was confronted. They have to try to 
discover what was the actual mentality of his Galatian converts 
and his Roman correspondents, and to judge why his argu- 
ments are peculiarly applicable to their, if not to our 
generation. 

And by doing this it will become constantly more plain that 
St. Paul is a man for all time, because he was essentially the 
man of his own; that what he accomplished was permanent for 
the reason that he had no eye for posterity, but did the work 
before him solely for the sake of those with whom he came 
in contact. And the more this is realized, the more value 
Paul will be to our generation. It will become clear that under 
changing circumstances these are always the same basic prin- 
ciples: that the service of Christ may vary in its form, but 

270 


PAUL’S LATER INE LUENCE 


will remain the same in essence. And when Paul is approached 
by this method his spirit will be better understood, and he will 
not be blamed for the mistakes of others, nor reproached with 
not having interested himself in what is of interest to us, but 
did not apply to the circumstances of his day. He will then 
be recognized as laying down and acting upon principles ap- 
plicable to all conditions of life. In the end it will, I believe, 
become evident that Paul was probably the truest Christian 
the Church has produced and that his life and writings justify 
what he said of himself: “But we have the mind of Christ.” 


271 


Gy EISATP abe Rau XOX a 11 Vi 
A/GENERAL ESTIMATE OF PAU'L”S WO RIK 


Havinc attempted to sketch the life of the great Apostle, 
our final task is to endeavour to estimate its significance. Paul 
is unquestionably the most outstanding figure in the history of 
early Christianity, in fact he is the only personage from the 
crucifixion till well on into the second century of whom we 
have any definite information. If we are disposed to think we 
know something about Peter, or John, or James the Lord’s 
brother, or Clement, it is astonishing how little this amounts 
to when we investigate the evidence about them. Though in 
the New Testament there are plenty of persons named, yet 
these, including Silvanus, Timothy, Titus, Luke and Mark and 
even the Twelve Apostles, except Peter, possess little or no 
individuality. 

And how little is known of Paul! Of his early life nothing 
save that he was a Benjamite, a citizen of Tarsus, the son of a 
Roman citizen, a Pharisee who had sat at the feet of Gamaliel 
at Jerusalem. A very few verses in Acts and the Epistles 
inform us of his zeal as a persecutor. After the story of his 
conversion hardly anything is known of him for years, till 
he leaves Antioch on a mission in Cyprus, and afterward in 
Southern Asia Minor. Even in his missionary career Acts 
sometimes relates that he stayed months or even years at 
Corinth, Ephesus and Rome and leaves us in almost complete 
ignorance as to his doings there. Finally he abruptly dis- 
appears from history; and, as our two preceding chapters 
have shown, the interest in his labours and in his teaching is 
sometimes great, often small, and always intermittent. Yet 
the study of the character of this great man is most fascinat- 

272 


Mobo V VU AA Be OR PeA TU EF SW Oo RK 


ing; and to pursue it without interruption this “Life” has 
left out all the extraneous matter, which has given so great an 
attraction to many accounts of the Apostle and has been the 
special contribution of English scholars to an understanding 
of his career. JI mean the descriptions of the countries he 
visited, the buildings of the great cities of antiquity, the roads 
he traversed, the harbours he entered, the political situation of 
the provinces in which he laboured. For this material it is 
impossible to be too grateful to the work done by Smith of 
Jordanhill, Lewin, Conybeare and Howson, and, above all, 
by Sir William Ramsay. It has also been considered advis- 
able to pay perhaps inadequate attention to the indefatigable 
efforts, especially in Germany, France, and America, to discover 
the sources used in the composition of the Book of Acts, not 
from any lack of appreciation of their importance, but from a 
desire to state clearly the estimate of Paul as a man from the 
documents as they appear in their present form. 

As regards the scenery, topography and historical associa- 
tion of the places visited Paul, so far as the records go, seems 
to have been entirely indifferent. Nota single hint is dropped 
that he was in any way affected by the natural beauties of the 
places he saw. Renan gives in a paragraph of exceptional 
eloquence a brief description of the works of art which adorned 
the Acropolis; but when Paul visited Athens, all that is 
recorded is that he grieved that the city was full of idols. 

Yet this “pitiful little Jew,” to quote Renan, with his blind- 
ness or lack of interest in the beauty of nature or of art, was 
keenly alive to every movement of humanity. The athletic 
contests of the Greeks suggested much to him with their severe 
preparatory training, and the men’s determination, not merely 
to display their powers as boxers or runners, but to win the 
contest. In the same spirit he may have watched the troop 
of initiates going to Eleusis. It may be said that the Apostle 
was interested in mankind, not in nature nor in art, and he was 
evidently capable of uncommon sympathy and friendship. 
His converts, his disciples, his coadjutors enjoyed both his 
solicitude and his affection. Paul evidently appreciated the 


273 


S.UASUFIN Lies 2 CRS 


society of his friends, and could not bear to be left alone, 
showing himself thoroughly human in this respect. 

It has often been debated whether Paul was married, but 
nothing whatever has been told us of his family life. It is 
generally assumed today that he was inexorably opposed to 
women taking part in the work of the Church. As regards 
Corinth, the only place where he dwells at length on this 
topic, he certainly was, as has been indicated, opposed to what 
at the time were feminine eccentricities, like appearing unveiled 
in the Christian assemblies contrary to what was at the time 
considered decorous (I Cor. xi. 2-16), nor did he permit 
women to speak in the very disorderly Church assemblies (1 
Cor. xiv. 34-35). It would be unreasonable to expect that he 
should have advocated the modern woman’s claim to be com- 
pletely equal to man. | 

But the words which have given so much offence are “In the 
same manner women are to be decently dressed, and are to 
adorn themselves with modesty and sensibly, not with plaited 
hair and gold, and pearls and expensive clothes, but as women 
who profess religion with good works. Let a woman learn 
in silence in all obedience: but I will not allow woman to 
teach (in public) nor to domineer over the men, for Adam 
was made first and then Eve, etc.” (1 Tim. ii. 9-12). Though, 
however, these sentiments are Scriptural, it is highly prob- 
able that they emanate, not from Paul, but from the author 
or editor of the Pastoral Epistles.’ 

In contrast to the words written by or attributed to Paul 
it is only right to remember that no evangelist made more 
use of female ministrations or appreciated them more highly. 
In fact many women, evidently of wealth and position, sup- 
ported the Christian movement. At Philippi there was Lydia, 
the hospitable hostess of Paul and his company; the house- 
hold of Chloe, presumably herself a believer, reported the 
state of affairs at Corinth to Paul in Ephesus. Priscilla, usu- 
ally mentioned before her husband Aquila, was a constant 
friend often spoken of and the “deaconess” Phoebe of the 

1See the Appendix. 


274 


Bese te VV AC? Obes PtA Use so WO Rik 


Church of Cenchre is recommended to the Romans in the 
highest terms. Lastly there are the women mentioned in the 
salutations of Romans xvi—especially the beautiful one to 
Rufus “the chosen of the Lord and his mother and mine” 
(Rom. xvi. 13). 

Paul fully recognizes in his later Epistles the importance 
of the family in Christian life. The household consists of the 
husband, wife, children and slaves. His advice in regard to 
children is a different tone from that adopted by the average 
Jew. Jesus, the son of Sirach, for example, advises severity 
and recommends chastisement as a sovereign remedy. “He 
that loveth his son, causeth him often to feel the rod... . 
He that chastiseth his son shall have joy in him... cocker 
thy child and he shall make thee afraid; play with him and he 
will bring thee to heaviness. . . . Bow down his neck whilst 
he is young, and beat him on the sides when he is a child” 
(Eccles. xxx. 12). How different is Paul’s advice. ‘Fathers 
provoke not your children to anger (#.e., avoid constantly irri- 
tating them) lest they be discouraged” (Col. iii. 21). As 
a husband a man should cherish and love his wife and as a 
master be just in dealing with his slaves. This interest shown 
in human life helps us to understand the amazing versatility 
of Paul. He describes his own character accurately when he 
tells the Corinthians that he became “all things to all men 
if by any means he might rescue some” (I Cor. ix. 22). He 
possessed a singular gift of adaptability and the power of 
making friends of men of all creeds and ranks of life. His 
natural politeness is conspicuous on every occasion and shines 
forth in his letters. Only rarely, for Paul was by disposition 
irritable and impulsive, does he depart from his wonted cour- 
tesy. One must admire his readiness of mind, and _ his 
resourcefulness in times of trial and danger, whether in the 
midst of an angry mob, or on the deck of a ship about to 
founder, or in the presence of provincial governors and native 
sovereigns. 

The same quality appears in his writings. Paul has re- 
peatedly been reproached with the rudeness of his construc- 


275 


SOARING La byen canes 


tions, the occasional clumsiness of his sentences, his barbarous 
Greek generally. His critics have undoubtedly erred on 
the side of severity; for his letters bears the stamp of good 
literature in their essential qualities. No one Epistle 1s ex- 
actly like another. Even when two treat of the same topic, 
like Colossians and Ephesians, they do so in a different manner. 
The discussion of the Law in Galatians and Romans is adapted 
to the circumstances of those to whom the letters are addressed. 
And no one can charge any letter of the Apostle’s with the 
most serious fault of dullness. Paul is always interesting and 
constantly uses phrases which have stood the test of time, 
and have become the commonplaces of all subsequent litera- 
ture. Everything he says, writes, or does, testifies to the vitality 
of Paul, and, like some others who have accomplished great 
things, he did his work amid the drawbacks of bad health. 
Whatever his “thorn in the flesh” may have been it certainly 
rendered him at times incapable of exertion, and may account 
for some of the gaps in his career to which it has been neces- 
sary to draw attention. Yet when the conditions of travel 
and of the countries traversed by Paul are taken into account, 
he must have had a wonderful reserve of strength to endure 
them in addition to the perils of persecution which he under- 
went. His whole career was a triumph of mind over matter, 
due to his intense conviction, and the enthusiasm by which 
he was animated. 

Convinced as Paul was that the end was near, and that 
Christ might at any moment appear in glory, he could not rest 
till he had proclaimed Him in every place. He declared that 
he would not go where other apostles had preached, but to 
places which had hitherto been outside the sphere of other 
men’s labours. He only broke this resolution when compelled 
to go to Rome, and evidently felt that the importance of the 
Christian community in the imperial city outweighed all other 
considerations. But it is highly probable that his active mis- 
sionary life ended with his arrest at Jerusalem. 

With all his belief in the nearness of the second coming of 
his Lord, Paul, despite all that has been said to the con- 

2.76 


ESTIMATE OF PAUL’S WORK 


trary, says but little of what is to happen in the last days. 
It must have seemed to him of little importance considering 
his belief that those who accepted Christ had already, by 
union with Him, entered wholly into His new creation. It 
is remarkable that only once is the Book of Daniel quoted by 
him, in the very difficult passage about the appearance of the 
“Tawless One” (II Thess. ii. 3; Dan. vii. 25). Nor does 
he show any literary dependence upon any non-canonical apoca- 
lypse, even the Similitudes of Enoch. In fact, except for I 
Cor. xv, and I Thess. iv, Paul says little about eschatology. 
Indeed it has been truly said that to him “the past coming of 
Christ is the supreme crisis in the world’s history.” He in- 
dulges in no descriptive visions of a Heaven, though he 
undoubtedly had some experience of them. His words in IT 
Corinthians xii. 2ff. are very instructive. He says there that, 
whether in the body or out of the body, fourteen years before 
he had been caught up to the third heaven, to the Paradise, 
and heard words which it was not lawful for man to speak. 
But he would not glory in his revelation because he wanted 
his converts to judge him by his conduct to them, and not as 
a man who had enjoyed exceptional spiritual advantages. 
Here a flood of light is thrown on the character of the 
Apostle; on the one hand he appears as an enthusiastic vis- 
jonary, but on the other a man whose practical desire for the 
welfare of his converts prevents him from dilating to them on 
the revelation he had received. Let his converts judge him by 
what they see and know, and decide by their experience of 
his character the justice of the charges brought against him. 
The noble reticence of Paul is the most remarkable feature 
in this passage. 

Barnabas and Paul appear from the first to have agreed to 
take nothing from their converts for their labours among them. 
It may be inferred from Acts iv. 36 that Barnabas had means of 
his own; and it is probable that Paul had. But there 1s no 
doubt that their resolutions made them from to time undergo 
considerable privation. Throughout his ministry Paul de- 


277 


SAENST PAUL 


clares that he never departed from his principle of self main- 
tenance except under great pressure, when he accepted aid 
only from his most favoured converts. How he maintained 
himself we do not exactly know, but it would appear from 
hints he lets fall that the labour was arduous to him, and it 
is possible that both he and Barnabas belonged to a class 
in the community for whom—if they had, as Jews, learned 
a particular trade—it would not under ordinary circumstances 
have been necessary to practise it. 

The attitude of the Apostle to his Gentile converts is pro- 
foundly interesting. He realized to the full the immense 
moral gap they had to cross before they could become members 
of the true Israel, called into being in the Church of Christ. 
This is brought out particularly in the letter to the Ephesians 
in which, being a circular Epistle addressed probably to many 
Churches in Asia Minor, Paul could speak fully to the Gen- 
tiles generally, and not to a small community of them. 

Before Christ came the Gentiles were dead in their sins, 
subject to the devil, the prince of those spirits or demons of 
which they and other men (“we all?) were in constant fear. 
As they were the slaves of all the baser impulses of the flesh 
they were justly subject to God’s wrath. Nevertheless God 
has shown mercy on them, and actually exalted them to sit 
in the heavenly places. Yet they must never forget that they 
were once aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, in whose 
promises they could have no share. They had been indeed 
utterly without God or hope. In Christ, however, the bar- 
rier between the true Israel and the redeemed Gentiles, the 
“middle wall of partition” has been broken’ down and all are 
one in Christ (Eph. 11. and Rom. ix.) That the Gentiles 
should share in the inheritance of Israel is to Paul, even near 
the close of his career, a mystery, disclosed to him by God 
Himself, so wonderful that he can hardly yet credit it, were 
not the knowledge conferred on him by God’s special grace 
(Eph. ii. 1-12). 

Comparing this with what is said in Romans, we cannot but 
infer that Paul most fully recognized the natural superiority 

278 


POET MAC beO Pap 4 UL SW ORS 


of the Jew to the Gentile, and can appreciate the sorrow he felt 
at the refusal of his own countrymen to hear his message of 
salvation. It was always a source of wonder to him that 
the Jews, whom he regarded as so infinitely nearer God than 
the Gentile world, should decline to listen to him, whilst the 
heathen eagerly, for all their moral inferiority, embraced his 
message. He can only account for this as part of the divine 
plan of the government of the world, which seemed to him 
to point to the gathering in of the elect Gentile world first, 
followed by the perfecting of God’s work by the return of 
His Own People. In the mind of Paul, Israel always had the 
first place. Apostle of the Gentiles as he was, it was always 
his custom first to announce his Gospel to his own people. 

The admission of the Gentiles was an astonishing manifes- 
tation of the power of Christ, and nothing in Paul’s life and 
writings can compare in importance to his attitude to his Mas- 
ter. One of the most disappointing features in the writings of 
the “Fathers” of the Christian Church is that it is by no means 
easy to find love for Jesus Christ as fully emphasized as we 
might expect. Even if it 1s implicit, it is rarely expressed. 
But Paul is entirely different. True, as a Jew he never for- 
gets that God is One, and that when the work of the Christ 
is accomplished it will make God “all in aLiee 

Not that Paul is an unique figure in the New Testament in 
his devotion to Christ: it is conspicuous throughout the Chris- 
tian Scriptures, in the first two Gospels, in the Lucan, Petrine 
and Johannine literature. Even the Epistle of James, the 
most Judaic book in the sacred canon, reéchoes the Sermon 
on the Mount, adopts the simple imagery of the teaching of 
the Master in Galilee, and describes its religion as “the faith 
of our Lord Jesus Christ.” But this 1s certainly not the lead- 
ing note of “patristic” literature, and the argument from its 
comparative silence may be adduced to show that the Chris- 
tianity of the early Church was not precisely that of the sacred 
canon, which it recognized as its authority. 

Paul, however, is too great a character to be dismissed in a 
short summary, and indeed all that can be written even at 


279 


SAINT PAUL 


length must prove inadequate. But two questions have to be 
answered before we close this sketch. 

The first is: Was Paul the real founder of Christianity? 
or, to put it otherwise, would the faith in Christ have con- 
quered the world without him? From what has already been 
said here the answer must be an emphatic negative to the first, 
and an affirmative to the other. True, Paul is the only mis- 
sionary of whose labours we know anything definite, yet from 
his own testimony there were many others—the brethren of 
the Lord, Cephas, Barnabas, the companions and also the 
rivals of Paul himself, who were eagerly spreading the Gospel. 
At Rome, at any rate, there was a Christian community long 
before he wrote his Epistle, or visited the imperial city. In 
the days of darkness in which we know only of the Christian 
Church by the vaguest of traditions, the work was going on; 
and when we emerge into the light of history once more we 
find in Egypt, in Africa, in Gaul, in places Paul certainly 
never reached, influential and firmly rooted churches of 
Christ. Nor were Paul’s churches as a rule destined to enjoy 
early prominence. Cut off as he was from active work by his 
imprisonment at Czxsarea in Palestine, as early as a. v. 58 
and perhaps even earlier his churches may well have fallen 
into comparative obscurity. But it is idle to indulge in specu- 
lations of what might have happened had Paul never lived, 
but that the Gospel preaching would have gone on without 
the mighty energy he devoted to it seems undoubted. 

The second is: Was Paul greater than Jesus? and startling 
as the question is, it is too often put to be thrust aside. If 
Jesus was all Paul acknowledged Him to be, the answer is 
obvious. It does not even matter in what sense he called 
Him “Lord” or what view he held of what we call “His 
Divinity.” Paul felt that compared to Jesus Christ he was 
less than nothing, and that he himself was a mere instrument 
in His hand to carry out His will and purpose. 

But if no more is assumed than the common modern claim 
that Jesus was no more than an unique personality, Who after 
a brief mission in Galilee, during which he declared many 

280 


BS EGO AC EE Oe PAU TE eS WO RE 


beautiful truths, was crucified by the enmity of the Jews; 
was not His simple life overshadowed by the stupendous 
labours of a disciple who had probably never so much as seen 
Him? But the voice of centuries of history and human expe- 
rience plainly denies this. Christianity never has been, nor 
can be, what is usually called Paulinism, for all the attractive 
features of the system; and even though at times the teaching 
of Paul has been studied to the exclusion of most of the rest 
of the New Testament, its influence in the many centuries of 
the Church’s life has been but intermittent. But at no time has 
it been possible to ignore Jesus, even by those who deny Him 
the obedience which His Church demands, and refuse to see 
in Him the Saviour of the world. Christianity stands or falls 
with Jesus. It is profoundly untrue to say that Paul made’ 
Jesus, or even gave Him an importance He would not other- 
wise have had. It is a literal fact that Jesus made Paul, and 
the greatness of the disciple is one of the chief miracles 
wrought by the Master. 


281 





oom 4 ri || 
i ir fe i 
\ VilA» “ s) 
| te iG 
wy 
a hi ie 
oe) 4 AAG Bre. ta 
\ 
Ny 
' 
’ 
f 
} 
' ap 
i 
| 
i 
we 
“@ ¥ 
t 
4 
4 
a 
ae 
‘ 
i 
Wf } 
i 
{ / 
4 
d 
) 
if 
{ 
) 
ie 4 ) 
ij eaby ' Re SAY CE ih wy 
iA v ADT ale } SN fe 
; J Pia ne 
a’ } i 
an i] ' in 
WEA PR TN 
dif a | ty Wily, i j 
\ - 
me At re 
itis wf Onan 
i , why 
fA \ kt a 4 J 
Nie 4 i es { Ma 
if : 
rir y A f 
; ' { 4 
Nis | ley We ate dial 
F LANE Wh! 
i j ¥ cs 
vr Aa gs 
‘ye re | 
i ie Wired aD 
sf { oN Ais 
} j At 
iia VW) wy’ 
an ai iv ite 
bed yt “ v 
av Gk fe a iy 
ih gave" iets 
















APPENDIX 
THE ATTITUDE OF ST. PAUL TOWARDS HIS FEMALE CONVERTS 


As Paul has been severely criticized for his remarks regard- 
ing the position of women in the Church, it may not be out of 
place here, even at the risk of some repetition, to discuss this 
question more fully than in the body of this work. 

It must be premised that the Apostle lived in a society 
different in many respects from our own, and that it was not 
his policy nor that of the Christian Church to advocate views 
which would entirely disrupt existing human relationships. 
Only where Christian principles were absolutely at variance 
with the existing order—as regards, for example, idolatry, 
impurity, and infanticide—did the Church take a firm stand. 
As to the family, and the relation of master to slave, it was 
content to accept existing conditions, and to enjoin its adher- 
ents to be kinder and more considerate as husbands, less exact- 
ing as parents, and more merciful as masters than in the world 
around. 

Bearing this in mind it is necessary to consider the position 
of woman in the days of St. Paul in Jewish, Greek and 
Roman society. 

Among the ancient Israelites woman had early attained a 
high position in the tribe or family, of which the father and 
mother, and not the father only, were the acknowledged 
leaders. Of the three deliverers from the bondage in Egypt, 
Moses, Aaron and Miriam, one was a woman. Among the 
judges Deborah takes a distinguished place. The model 
Hebrew wife in the beautiful acrostic poem at the end of the 
Proverbs, the woman of “virtue,” or “might,” rules the house- 
hold and increases her husband’s wealth. Women played an 

283 


DAD REIN GLO Lex 


heroic part in the Maccabean struggle, and Alexandra, one 
of the greatest of that royal dynasty, ruled wisely and 
prudently. Yet in rabbinic theology woman’s inferiority was 
recognized as a matter of course, and the Disciples of Jesus 
marvelled that the Master “talked so long with the woman” 
of Samaria at Sychar (John iv. 27). Moreover the Jewish 
wife was expected above all things to maintain proper decorum 
in conduct. 

In Greece the free-born wife was rarely allowed to trans- 
gress the limits of the household, or to mingle in public 
affairs. “Those who exerted influence over men as their com- 
panions, were not as a rule their legitimate spouses, whose 
sphere was confined to the household, and the modern oriental 
idea of secluding the wife seems to have been widely prevalent. 

The ideal Roman matron was undoubtedly a great power in 
the family, but her subjection to her husband was unques- 
tionable. She often proved capable of heroic virtue, but the 
highest praise of a noble wife was “She abode in her home, 
and spun the wool.” Everywhere in fact the provinces of the 
two sexes were distinct, and domesticity was expected of the 
female. 

Yet in the times of Paul, when national, and also family 
ties, were being dissolved, there was a tendency towards what 
is now called “the emancipation of woman” and this was espe- 
cially noticeable in the matter of religion. The new worships 
of Cybele, Isis and Dionysus, had an especial attraction for 
the sex, and Judaism recruited from it the most enthusiastic 
proselytes. 

That the woman mentioned in Acts 1. 14, together with the 
Twelve and the Mother of Jesus and His brethren, played 
an important part in the diffusion of the Gospel cannot be 
questioned, and that the missionary work of Paul owed much 
to female assistance has already been indicated. Moreover 
the Apostle declares his belief that “in Christ” all distinction 
of sex as well as of race have been done away, and conse- 
quently there is no room in his system for the alleged inferi- 
ority of woman to man. 

284 


APPENDIX 


Nevertheless there are undoubtedly certain words of Paul 
expressly limiting the functions of women, which need careful 
consideration, of which the most important are to be found in 
the First Epistle to the Corinthians. 

There is the curious passage in xi. 13-15. It was evidently 
becoming the practice at Corinth for the Christian women to 
forsake the practice of covering the head when they went 
abroad and to appear unveiled in the Church assembles. This 
the Apostle condemns, and his arguments to prove that the 
custom was unseemly appear to disparage the position of the 
wife towards the husband. They are very difficult to under- 
stand or appreciate; and it is far easier to see why Paul for- 
bids women to come uncovered to worship, than to accept 
the reasons he alleges. 

The head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ 
is God. Therefore a man dishonours his head by covering it 
when he prays or prophesies in God’s presence. The woman 
on the contrary ought to cover her head when praying or 
prophesying (note that here Paul permits her to speak in the 
spirit in public) because man is in the image and glory of 
God, and woman is the glory of man. In fact man was not 
created for woman, but woman for man. 

The object of this appeal to Scripture is to convince the 
Apostle’s female correspondents, not of their necessary in- 
feriority to man, but of the desirability of observing proper 
modesty when they attended public worship. The argument 
that a custom which the Apostle regarded as unseemly should 
be discontinued is enforced by Scriptural authority and is 
thoroughly rabbinic. 

The character of the city of Corinth and of the little 
Christian community Paul had established there deserves care- 
ful attention. 

Despite of its standing on an ancient site, and bearing the 
name recalling the antique glories of Greece, Corinth was a 
comparatively new city. It had been completely destroyed 
by the Roman Consul Mummius in B. c. 146, and after lying 
desolate for a century was restored by Julius Cesar and re- 

285 


ACP PoE Nee 


peopled by him. In St. Paul’s day it was prosperous, with 
a mixed population and a constant influx of foreigners, out 
of which he had built up a small congregation, mainly com- 
posed of Gentiles, which, when he wrote, had only been a 
year or so in existence. No wonder then that the Apostle 
was very sensitive to the least symptom of laxity among his 
female converts. 

When we reach the fourteenth chapter, we find that the 
worship of the Church was becoming orgiastic. Nor is this 
to be wondered at. We saw how in I Cor. xi. the Eucharist 
tended to degenerate into a disorderly meal, and it was natural 
that people unaccustomed to the restrained ritual of the syna- 
gogue should, when left to themselves, give way to spiritual 
excitement, and that their worship, with the language of 
Judaism and Christianity, should exhibit the frantic character 
of pagan devotion. When many were “speaking with tongues 
and prophesying simultaneously,” Paul says that a stranger 
entering the assembly might think they were indulging in the 
ravings of possessed pagans; and as women were, we know, 
specially subject to similar outbursts of enthusiasm in the wor- 
ship of Cybele, to cite but a single instance, no wonder the 
Apostle sternly enjoined them to keep silence, and to consult 
with their husbands privately (xiv. 34-35). 

Passing over the injunctions to wives to submit themselves 
to their husbands in Colossians iii. 18 and Ephesians v. 24, 
and to the comparison of Christ as the spouse and the Church 
as His bride, taken from the Old Testament and rabbinical 
descriptions of the relation of God to Israel, we reach the 
much controverted passage in I Timothy: 


“I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting 
up holy hands without wrath and doubting. In like 
manner that women adorn themselves in modest apparel. 
. . . But (which becometh women professing godliness) 
with good works. Let a woman learn in subjection. But 
I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over 
the man, but to be in silence, etc., etc.” (I Tim. ii. 8-12). 

2.86 


APPENDIX 


It has been indicated that the Pastoral Epistles—I and II 
Timothy and Titus—may not be the genuine work of Paul, 
though they certainly belong to his generation or to one very 
little later. They are in the category of the books of Church 
Order, so common at a later period. But even if we grant 
that they express the mind of Paul, one has only to read a 
little further to see how active was the ministry of women 
in the primitive Church. A candidate for a widow’s pension 
had not only to be an old and desolate woman, but to have 
proved herself a zealous Church worker in her younger days; 
she must have brought up children (perhaps those exposed to 
death by their heathen parents) exercised hospitality to 
strangers, received Christian visitors with honour, relieved the 
afflicted, and diligently devoted herself to good works (I Tim. 
v.10). The later books of Church Order assign a high place to 
the deaconess, who stood in the same relation to the women as 
the deacon (a very important official) to the men, and actually 
in one instance there is a comparison of the bishop to the 
Father, of the deacon to the Son, and of the deaconess to the 
Holy Spirit. Without women’s help Christianity could never 
have penetrated into the secluded households of the Mediter- 
ranean seaboard, and we have but to read the list of those 
whom Paul salutes in his Epistles to see the absurdity of 
accusing him of a narrow prejudice against employing the help 
of woman in the furtherance of the Gospel. Lydia, Pheebe, 
Priscilla and many others rise up to protest against such a dis- 
tortion of the Apostle’s motives. 

But to understand his attitude aright here and elsewhere we 
must seek his meaning not in the light of modern controversy, 
but by the knowledge of the conditions of the world in which 
Paul lived and wrote. 


287 


i 
wile 
ae 


nw 





INDEX 


Acts of the Apostles 

—historical importance of, 19 

—the “We Sections,” 20, 138 

—Paul’s conversion in, 73 

—‘Western,” Text of, 122 

Acts of Paul 

—account of his death, 235 

Albigensian Heresy 

—war against, 267 

Antioch (Pisidian) 

—Paul preaches in synagogue, 94 

Antioch in Syria 

—Barnabas at, 94 

—Peter and Paul dispute at, 113 

Apocrypha 

—preserved by Christians, 32 

Apollos 

—his relation to the Baptist and Jesus, 
162 

Apostles—The Twelve 

—little known of, 53, 272 

Apostolic Council 

—decree and letter of, 122 

Aquila and Priscilla 

—join Paul at Corinth, 158 

—instruct Apollos, 162 

—connection with Rome, 191 

Aramaic 

—language widespread, 32 

—theory of original language of Acts 
i-xv, 52 

Aristeas, Letter to 

—describes Jerusalem, 27 

Athens 

—Paul’s speech at, 150 

Asia Minor 

—home of many religions, 101 

—Paul’s work in, 94 

Assideans, Sect of 

—non-political, 29 

Augustine, St. 

—view of Paul, 16 

—Pelagian controversy, 264 

Augustus 

—improves condition of provinces, 40 


Baptism 
—how far primitive, 57 
—administered at once, 142 


Baptism (continued) 

—Paul’s doctrine of, 249 

Barnabas 

—leader of Hellenistic Christians, 56 

—his character, 83, 92 

—dispute about Gentiles, 125 

—alleged Epistle of, anti-judaic, 125, 
256 

Beginnings of Christianity 

—references to, 7, 8, 29, 31, 40, 43, 
85, 101 

—on Gospels, 50 

—on Dr. Torrey’s theory, 52 

—on the Pharisees, 68 

—Paul’s visits to Jerusalem, 111 

—Luke and Acts, 138 

—meaning of “Zealot,” 204 

—significance of word “Christ,” 205 

Bernice 

—sister of Agrippa II, 217 

Berea 

—converts examine Scriptures, 145 

Brethren of the Lord 

—prominent in early church, 55 

Britain 

—possible connection of Paul with, 237 

Burney, Professor 

—Aramaic original of Fourth Gospel, 52 


Catacombs, Roman 

—testimony of, 227 

Cesar 

worship of, 49 

Cesarea 

—Paul imprisoned at, 214 

Churches dedicated to Paul 

—in Rome, 21 

—in London, 238 

Caius, or Caligula 

—his statue ordered to be put in the 
temple, 44 

Calvin 

—view: of Paul, 8 

—predestination, 269 

Citizenship, Roman 

—claimed by Paul and Silas, 142 

—its advantages, 142 

Claudius Lysias 

—military governor of Jerusalem, 210 





289 


INDEX 


Clement of Rome 

—first Epistle of, 233, 257 

—testimony to Paul’s death, 233 

Clementine literature 

—veiled antagonism to Paul, 263 

Colossians, Epistle to 

—Gnostic asceticism, 228 

Corinth 

—Paul’s first visit to, 155 

—probably there several times, 184 

Corinthians—Epistles to 

—first Epistle, value of, 169 

—second Epistle, Circumstances of, 183 

—conclusion of II Cor. a third letter, 
188 

Colossians—Epistle to 

—written possibly from Rome, 227 

Creeds 

—doctrine of Christ like Paul’s, 243 

Cyprus 

—description of, 87 


Demetrius of Ephesus 

—a dangerous demagogue, 167 
Demonology 

—Paul’s attitude towards, 163 
Diana or Artemis 

—cause of riot against Paul, 167 
Dionysius, the Areopagite 
—writings attributed to, 154 
Drusilla 

—wife of Felix, 214 


Elymas or Bar-Jesus 

—rebuked by Paul, 88 

Emmet, C. W. 

—case for Lucan authorship of Acts, 
138 

Epicurus 

—system of, 67, 152 

Ephesus 

—Paul at, 160 

—tumult in the theatre, 166 

Epistles of Paul 

—acknowledged and disputed, 18 

—called “The Apostle,” 262 

Eschatology 

—in Epistles to Thessalonians, 145 

—Paul lays little stress on, 276 

Eusebuis historian 

—on deaths of Peter and Paul, 234 


Family 

—importance of to Paul, 275 
Felix 

—procurator of Judea, 213 


Festus 

—Paul before, 215 

Flesh (sarx) 

—what Paul means by, 247 
Frame, Prof. J. E. 
—author’s acknowledgment, 9 


Galatians 

—northern or southern? 108, 131 
Galatians—Epistle to 

—Paul describes his conversion, 77 
—subject of, 109 

—destination, 132 

Gallio 

—proconsul of Achaia, 156 
Gamaliel 

—teacher of Paul, 31 

—his toleration, 65 

Gentiles 

—Paul turns to, 100 

—freedom from Law, 114 

—why forbidden to become Jews, 245 
—their defects, 276 
Gnostic—Ebionite 

—antagonistic to Paul, 262 

Greeks 

—failings of in I Corinthians, 170 
Gospels 

—later than Paul, 49 

—relation to Paul, 252 

Great Synagogue 

—men of, 27 


Hebrews—Epistle to 

—like and unlike Paul’s teaching, 
Hegesippus 

—account of death of James, 206 
Hellenists 

—Greek-speaking Jews, 32 
Herod Agrippa 

—Paul before, 216 

High Priests 

—virtual rulers of Judza, 
—unpopularity of families of, 205 


205 


Iconium 

—Paul and Barnabas visit, 102 
Ignatius of Antioch 

—influence of Paul on, 257 
Introduction—Letters of 

—in II Corinthians, 185 
Trenzus 

—value of his Apostolic tradition, 231 
Israel 

—religious designation, 26 
—ancient religion of, 26 
—cause of rejection, 195 


290 


INDEX 


James, Dr. M. R. 

—Apocryphal New Testament, 54 

James—the Lord’s brother 

—head of Christians at Jerusalem, 55 

—story of martyrdom, 204 

Jansenists 

—attached to Paul’s doctrine, 269 

Jason 

—of Thessalonica, 145 

Jerusalem 

—Christian community, 84 

—famine visit of Barnabas and Paul, 84 

—apostolic council, 120 

—collection for poor at, 181 

—Paul’s last visit to, 200 

Jesus Christ 

—supremacy in Paul’s system, 241 

—“knowing after the flesh,” 251 

—probably revered by Jews in Jeru- 
salem, 205 

—far greater than Paul, 280 

Jew 

—meaning of the word, 25 

—persecution of, 28 

—social position, 197 

Johannine books in New Testament 

—contrasted with Paul, 258 

John the Baptist 

—allusion to him by Paul, 97 

—his baptism, 160 

Josephus 

—writings preserved by Christians, 32 

—education of, 65 

—death of James the just, 205 

Julius 

—Centurion in charge of Paul, 221 


Lake, Professor Kirsopp 
—theory of Paul’s chronology, 78 
—on Jerusalem decree, 123 
Law—Jewish 

—not regarded as a burthen, 32 
—condemned for Gentiles, 243 
Lord’s Supper 

—abuses at Corinth, 175 
—seldom mentioned by Paul, 250 
Lucretius 

—Epicurean poet, 152 

Luke, St. 

—joins Paul, 138 

—with Paul on voyage, 221 
—did he understand Paul? 252 
Luther 

—his view of Paul, 8 
—doctrine of justification, 268 


Lycaonia 

—Paul in Lycaonia, 102 
—legends of divine visits to, 103 
Lystra 

—healing of cripple, 103 


Maccabees 

—revolt of, 28 

Macedonia 

—Paul’s success in, 139 

Magic 

—opposition to, 163 

Malta 

—shipwreck off, 222 

Marcion 

—his view of Paul, 8 

—denies authorship of Pastoral Epistles, 
PERa252 

—misapprehends Paul, 263 

Mark, John 

—related to Barnabas, 83 

—leaves Paul and Barnabas at Perga, 
92 

—dispute about, 125 

Marriage 

—Paul’s advice to Corinthians, 173 

Mars Hill (Areopagus) 

—Paul’s address, 152 

Miletus 

—speech to Ephesian Elders, 202 

Mystery religion 

—interests in widespread, 42 


Nero 
—Christianity illegal, 237 


Papyri 

—illustrating life in Roman Empire, 
Paul, St. 

—judgments on him, 8 
—interesting character, 13 
—relation to Jesus, 16 
—speeches of, 20 
—birth and education, 62 
—a Pharisee, 67 
—conversion, 72 

—how far abnormal, 81 
—meaning of name, 90 
—legend of Thecla, 102 
—visits to Jerusalem, 108 
—at Philippi 139 

—at Thessalonica, 144 
—at Athens, 151 

—at Corinth, 155 

—vows taken by, 157 
—at Ephesus, 163 


291 


INDEX 


Paul, St. (continued) 

—last journey to Jerusalem, 200 

—prophet not theologian, 242 

—in Clementine literature, 263 

Paulician heresy 

—borrowed Pauline ideas, 266 

Pastoral Epistles 

—question of authorship, 228, 252 

—notices of Paul, 18, 224, 229 

Pentecost—Day of 

—Christian church organized on, 57 

Persecution 

—about Stephen, 2138 

—first Gentile persecution at Thessa- 
lonica, 146 

Peter or Cephas 

—first leader of the church, 55 

—Paul rebukes at Antioch, 113 

—at Apostolic council, 120 

Pharisees 

—first appearance of, 29 

—attitude of Christ towards, 31 

—Josephus description of, 67 

—efforts to make the Law possible, 69 

Philemon—Letter to 

—a model of courtesy, 227 

—possibly written from Rome, 227 

Philip, one of the Seven 

—earliest Christian missionary, 58 

Philippi 

—Roman colony, 139 

—date of Epistle to, 225 

Pilate, Pontius 

—makes aqueduct, 45 

Philo 

—writing preserved by Christians, 33 

Proselytes 

—actively sought, 34 

—bigotry of, 34 

Provinces 

—imperial and senatorial, 88 

Pudens 

—mentioned with Linus and Claudia, 
230, 238 

Pythian spirit 

—girl possessed by at Philippi, 140 


Ramsay, Sir W. 

—on descendants of Sergius Paulus, 91 

Renan on Paul 

—Paul and Barnabas, 128 

—Paul has no eye for art, 273 

Resurrection 

maeen explanation of to Corinthians, 
178 


Romans—Epistle to 

—Paul’s spiritual experience in, 190 
—a circular letter, 190 

—outline of, 193 

Rome 

—mixed population, 44 

—church in, 191 

—Paul’s arrival at, 223 

—tradition to be respected, 231 


Sacraments 

—Paul’s view of, 241 
Sadducees 
—principles of, 67 
Seneca 

—Paul and, 239 
Septuagint 


~ —origin of, 33 


Sergius Paulus 

—“‘deputy” of Cyprus, 89 
Silas or Silvanus 

—loyal colleague of Paul, 124 
—disappears from narrative, 157 
Simon Magus 

—traditions concerning, 59 
—possibly not a Jew, 88 
Slavery 

—fortunes made in, 47 
—Paul’s attitude to, 275 
Smith, James, of Jordanhill 
—voyage and shipwreck of Paul, 221 
Spiritual gifts 

—often abused, 177 

Stephen 

—an Hellenistic Jew, 68 
—stoning of, 218 

Stoics 

—system of, 17, 67, 152 
Synagogue 

—worship of, 35 

—at Antioch of Pisidia, 95 


Tarsus 

—home of Paul, 62 

Temple of Jerusalem 

—Paul accused of profaning, 208 

Tertullus 

—speech accusing Paul, 214 

Tertullian 

—testimony to Paul at Rome, 234 

Thessalonians—Epistles to 

—first description of a Gentile church, 
146 

—the man of Sin, II Thessalonians, 148 

Thessalonica 

—Paul founds a church at, 144 


292 


INDEX 


Tiberius Torrey, Professor 

—his provincial administration, 40 —Aramaic Sources of Acts, 52 
Timothy Troas 

—Paul finds at Lystra, 103 —Paul raises Eutychus, 202 


Tubingen School 


circumcision of, 128 —theories about Paul, 263 
Titus 
—at Jerusalem with Paul and Barna- Windisch, Hans 
bas, 119 — —case against Lucan authorship of 
—goes to Corinth, 184 Acts, 138 
Tongues—Gift of Woman 
—in I Corinthians, 177 —Paul’s attitude toward, 274, 283 


THE END 


Date Due 


ee) 
nh) 


4 
in 


x4 
Psi 
ye 
> | Fs 
se 
oe fe 


| 
4 
A 
iy 





| 
= 
¢ a 
» | 
aa 





ry ‘iyi 





BS2658 .F649 
The life of Saint Paul, the man and the 


Princeton Theological Seminary—Speer Library 


UMNO 


1 1012 00064 0633 





